power of education. I confefs I do not underftand the confiftency of pleading earnedly againft the repeal of laws, and pleading, with the fame breath, for configning them over to perpetual oblivion: nor do I know why any should intereft themselves, and make a noife for the preservation of laws, which yet, in the name of God, they must forbid the execution of. Acts entirely ufelefs, improper, and difgraceful, can never be too foon repealed. But fuch I take not the act just now mentioned to be. The leading principle and main defign of it appears to have been, to weaken and undermine the Popish interest in Britain by degrees, until it might at last be annihilated, by methods attended with as little violence, cruelty, or bloodshed, as poffible. A defign truly laudable and wife! A more attentive and steady prosecution of it might have been attended, by this time, with fome very defireable and falutary effects. Had that act been more looked after, the party could not have retained the strength, and gained the footing which we now fee they have. By it they had been effectually prevented from ever becoming powerful and formidable, by their numbers, public union, property, honours, or wealth; and they would have been for ever incapable of exerting any influence, direct or indirect, upon the public affairs and managements. Yea, it might have nearly delivered us finally from fuch troublesome and dangerous neighbours. Hereby they might have been induced to withdraw, of their own accord, to more kindly climates, or might have got their fentence of transportation to haften. their motion and, by this time, thofe hellifh fiends, the priests and miffionaries, who heretofore have been walking like the peftilence in darkness, and are now allowed to fhew themfelves like deftruction wafting at noon-day, might have difappeared, conjured back to the abyfs from whence they came.

Popery

Popery is an evil of fuch a nature, that it cannot be remedied but by its entire deftruction. It is a gangrene in the body politic, which admits of no milder cure than cautery or amputation. It is a fubtle fpreading poifon, which, if the smallest portion of it be fuffered to remain, will infect and corrupt the whole mafs of blood. It is a pernicious hrub, whofe branches must not only be lopped off, but the very roots and smallest fibres of it grubbed up, otherwife it will ftill fpring up anew, and be in danger of overtopping all around it. Therefore it was certainly a neceffary and politic measure, to cut off Papists from any right of fucceeding to eftates, or acquiring real property, and to deprive them of the power of educating, or rather perverting, children and minors, whereby their interest might be still kept alive, and their principles, like their eftates, perpetuated from generation to generation. It was not enough that they had formerly been excluded from offices and places of trust in the government, as long as they had these privileges referved to them. While that was the cafe, a door was still left open for Popery to enter by, and they were not left altogether without hopes of retrieving their affairs, and wriggling themfelves, fome time or other, into power, and they have fometimes feen. their hopes, in a great measure, realized. It is a maxim, that power follows property; and, in fuch a conftitution as that of Great Britain, a landed intereft will neceffarily give to its poffeffors a proportionable degree of weight and influence in the ftate. And confidering the violent spirit for election-jobbing, the prevailing arts of bribery and corruption, and the infamous minifterial practices of packing parliaments, there is no reafon to doubt but the intereft of Papists will be courted, and perhaps improved, for the very worst purpofes. Nor will it be at all furprising, if, in confequence of the prefent law, Roman Catholics fhould have a great part of the lands in England and Ireland in their hands, though the treasures of the church should be opened, and

the

the hoarded wealth of Jefuits, and other condemned eftablishments, fhould be applied to that purpose. In that event, what would we not have to fear? Their tenants and vaffals would most likely be of their own religion. Care would be taken to exclude and defraud their Protéfant heirs, again which there is no fecurity provided in this act, though an amendment was propofed to the bill, with that view, in one of the houfes. Nor would the remaining laws, debarring them from all places of power and truft, prove iong our fecurity. Methods will be found out of eluding these alfo. Or though they fhould be kept from all public offices and employments, if their power in other respects increase, this may prove as hurtful, and is no lefs to be dreaded. The influence which arifes from pofts and offices under the crown, is but arbitrary, temporary, and precarious. It is like the gourd that fprung up in a night, and perished in a night. It was one of the fhort-fighted, premature, and impolitic meafures of Popish James, to lavish honours and preferments apon Roman Catholics, before their intereft was fufficiently established otherwife in the nation. Hence their reign and triumph was but short. That power, of which they thought themselves poffeffed, having no folid or lafting bafis, difappeared in a moment; and thefe over-hafty mushroom productions of a court, fuddenly fhrunk again to nothing. But the influence which arifes from extenfive property, and landed estates, being hereditary, is more stable and permanent, and is capable of continual advance; and though it fhould operate for a time more flowly, and, at first, almost imperceptibly, yet more furely and effectually at laft. And if our governors continue in their present humour of kindness to Papifts, the unhappy day may not be far off, when the door of preferment may alfo be fet open to them, and they may once more dictate in the cabinet, and fill our parliaments, courts, and armies. It is vain to think that this act of favour will content that afpi

ring faction, unless more be granted them. Whatever be the views of adminiftration, it is certainly confidered by the indulged as nothing more than a prelude to further privileges to be extended to them in future. Large as the favours, already granted them, are, they are very difproportioned to their boundless withes and hopes, and far below the mark they aim at. Will they ceafe to folicit, bribe, flatter, or threaten, until they obtain the reft? Will they think they have any thing to be grateful for until they have reached the ne plus ultra? Their maxim is, All or nothing. The liberty allowed them will ferve only to embolden them more to advance in their infolent demands and pretenfions, and to feed their extravagant hopes. It has been their manner formerly to rife step by step, and, from bare toleration, to creep into power and office. The plea of liberty of confcience has been often used by them merely as a ladder for their ambition; and state favours have only rendered them arrogant, prefumptuous, and more impatient of controul. This was exactly verified in the conduct of the party for a feries of years before the Revolution; and there is too much. reafon to apprehend, that it will yet be verified again. Al ready are they beginning to raise their crest and to talk big, affuming, we are told, in fome places a spirit and tone of intolerable infolence, and demeaning themfelves in a moft provoking manner, fome of them not having even the precaution to wait till the fhackles were taken off their hands.

Will any ftill attempt to hoodwink the public by fpecious words, and fpeculative refinements about natural and unafienable rights, and contend that there is nothing more included in the late acts than merely a reftoration of thefe to men unjustly deprived of them on religious accounts? In a matter of fuch confequence, let us not be impofed upon and deluded by any theories and Utopian fystems, which, though pleafing to the mind of the philofopher, will never comport with the ftate and interest of actual fociety. It is undoubtedly

002

edly the bufinefs of legiflation to restrain every thing incon fiftent with the public good: and thofe natural rights which either in themselves, or by the improper ufe made of them, cannot confift therewith, may juftly be taken away or reftrained. And if any will forfeit their natural rights, or incapacitate themselves for the benefits of fociety, in that cafe, not the legiflator or the laws, but themfelves, are to blame. Will the plea of rights bail a thief from the prifon, or a murderer from the gallows? will it entitle an idiot or lunatic to manage his eftate, rule his family, and enjoy his liberty at pleasure? Is it fufficient to prevent an act of forfeiture from paffing against a traitor, or his children after him? Among the various other caufes, natural or moral, whereby the enjoyment of natural rights may be fufpended or forfeited, and which may produce legal incapacities, the Popish religion in certain circumstances, and as it is above explained, is one abundantly competent and relevant. If this pofition be denied, whether will Proteftants be led? To deny it is to impugn indirectly the fundamental principle of the British Revolution-conftitution. And may we not, with equal plausibility, be next told, that all diftinctions and incapacities whatever should be removed, and that perfons of every religion, Papists as well as others, should be declared on the fame footing as to their right of rifing to preferment and offices, feeing all men are by nature equal, and none can plead any natural right to civil honour or authority more than another, having only the right of eligibility. Have we forgot the ever-memorable debates, refolutions, and decifions of the better part of the community, upon the bills, firft of exclufion, and afterwards of extrusion of the Duke of York from the throne of Britain? What gave birth to both of thefe? was it not the Duke's religion? Upon what grounds can thefe proceedings, and the law eftablished in confequence of them, declaring that no Papist can inherit the crown of Britain, be vindicated, if the Popifh religion be not a fufficient difqualification? Let Britons

1

beware.