When the learned Seconder stated, with such evident disapprobation, that it is a dogma of Catholicism that all good men will not go to heaven, it is fair to conclude that he himself does believe that all good men will go to heaven, and the belief does honor to his heart. But if the opposite opinion be the test of an intolerant spirit, if it be the standard of a faith which should expose the person who entertains it to civil disabilities, what shall we say of many members of the established church, and of those sects of dissenters which are generally designated as orthodox? Alas! many members both of the established and of the dissenting body, whose lives illustriously adorn their respective religious professions, do believe that all good men will not go to heaven. Many believe so, who nevertheless consider the rights of conscience as so sacred, that they would approach the subject as they would the apple of the eye of the religious body, and would shrink with a pious awe from signing this very Petition, lest in any way, however indirect, they might appear to interfere between man and his Maker. A very moderate acquaintance with the varieties of religious belief would convince the enquirer that there are members of the Reformed Religion, who circumscribe the mercy of a Being of infinite benevolence within much narrower limits than would be comprehended by the extensive pale of the Catholic Church, even admitting for the sake of argument, that this was a general belief of its members. Many of them, however, solemnly disavow it.* * In confirmation of this disavowal the following passages from the Catechisms and Books of Devotion, in circulation among, the Catholics may, not improperly, be cited, I appre hend To the members of the Established Church who insist on the intolerance of the Catholic creed, is it not fair to reply that the most intolerant creed in their ritual, that to which the name of Athanasius is prefixed, is adopted by the Church of England, and is ordered to be read upon its great festivals ? I would speak with respect of the creed of every Church, nor would I reproach the members of an Establishment, whose practice has long been tolerant, with the damnatory clauses of a symbol which many of the more intelligent among them indignantly disavow, and which even an Archbishop (Tillotson) wished the Church "well rid of." But let it not be contended that the decrees of Councils assembled in the dark ages, or the decisions of infuriated disputants, at a period when toleration was a word unknown, are still held sacred amongst our Catholic brethren, because they have not been formally repealed. Let us only suppose that in some foreign country, and under an establishment different from our own, hend that no sect could refuse to be tried by this test, as to its real opinions and sentiments. From GOTHER'S "Instructions and Devotions for Confession and Communion," p. 101.—“ Extend thy mercy also to all poor infidels that sit in darkness and the shadow of death: to all those nations that know thee not, or have not as yet received the faith and law of thy son their Saviour; to all Pagans, Mahometans, and Jews. Remember, Oh Lord, that all these poor souls are made after thine own image and likeness, and redeemed by the blood of thy Son." Extracts from the "Abstract of the Douay Catechism."Q. What is charity? A. It is a gift of God in our souls, by which we love God above all things, and our neighbours as ourselves. Q. Who are our neighbours? A. All mankind, especially Catholics.-Q. Why all mankind? A. Because they are the images of God and redeemed by the blood of Christ.-Q. Why especially Catholics? A. Because they are the members of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. where liberty of worship was permitted, but where civil disabilities were connected with certain modes of faith, a body of episcopalian Christians had applied for relief from those disabilities. Let us suppose that some zealous supporter of the predominant sect should object to that relief upon the ground that they were an intolerant body, and that they sought for themselves privileges which they would withhold from others. Let us suppose that their opponent should point to those laws, yet unrepealed in the statute book, which impose the most cruel penalties upon men who` dissent in some particulars from the doctrines of the Church of England. Let us suppose that he pointed to those Acts (the Five-mile and,Conventicle Acts) worthy only of the dark ages, which nevertheless had successfully resisted the progress of light and knowledge till within a very few months.* Would it not be * By these Acts those who neglected to attend at Church on Sunday were liable to the censures of the Church, and fineable 1s. for each offence, 201. per month for continued personal absence, and 101. per month for the non-attendance of their servants-these fines were recoverable by very summary proceedings-the lands of the person offending were seizable by the crown-and persons who neglected to conform might be committed to prison, or must abjure the realm; and on their refusal or return incurred the guilt of felony without benefit of clergy, and the punishment of death:-By the Conventicle Act, 22 Charles II. c. 1. additional and most severe restrictions were imposed. As to the ministers of the Protestant Dissenters (besides being liable to all the statutes we have enumerated) they were by the Act of Uniformity (13 and 14 Charles II. c. 4.) subject to a penalty of 1001. for administering the Lord's Supper: by the Five Mile Act (17 Charles II. c. 2.) they were prohibited, under a penalty of 401. from coming within five miles of any city, town corporate, or borough: and by the Conventicle Act they forfeited 201. for the first offence, and for the second offence 401. if they preached in any place "at which there should be FIVE or more besides those of the household.” Under competent to the calumniated Episcopalian to say, "it is true that these statutes do still disgrace our statute-book, but they are never acted upon. They have long been dormant, nor is there any chance of their being revived." If, in defiance of this appeal to fact, the accuser still persisted in maintaining, that because unrepeuled they must be still approved, would not the accused be justified in saying "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour?" I will appeal to the candour and liberality of the thinking members of the Establishment, whether this be not an analogous case. But, says the respectable Mover of the petition, it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, that it is not only lawful but meritorious to persecute heretics.-Much stress has been laid, in support of this opinion, upon a clause in the oath taken by Catholic Archbishops and Bishops, at the time of their consecration, which engages them to the utmost of their power, to prosecute and oppose all heretics and schismatics Whatever import these words formerly conveyed, their meaning is so much softened by an Explanation published in 1791 by the College of Cardinals, in the Under the operation of these laws (according to historical relations) from the Restoration to the Revolution, during the short period of 26 years, informers acquired opulence by prosecutions: 60,000 persons suffered for dissent: several thousand persons expired in prisons: and, during three years, property was extorted from the Dissenters exceeding two millions sterling. Report of the Protestant Society, July, 1812. -At the Revolution considerable relief was afforded, although religious bigotry was still sufficiently powerful to resist the repeal of the Acts in question. But though not practically repealed till the month of July last, they had long been rendered unimportant by the extension of a spirit of liberality and Christian charity. name and with the sanction of Pius VI. that they may fairly be considered as being disarmed. "These words," says the rescript, "are maliciously interpreted as the signal of war against heretics, authorising persecution and assault against them as enemies; whereas the pursuit and opposition to heretics which the bishops undertake, are to be understood as referring to their solicitude and efforts in convincing heretics of their errors, and procuring their reconciliation with the Catholic Church." But this is not all. With a view, as it should seem, to avoid the possibility of offence, this clause was directed by the same Pontiff, to be omitted in the oath of the Irish Arch-bishops and Bishops: and instead of it, a clause was introduced, declaring that no part of the obligation entered into by the Prelate then consecrated, did interfere in the least with his fidelity and allegiance to the King of Great Britain and Ireland, or his successors on the throne; and the oath thus altered and modified has been taken by every Prelate of the Irish Catholic Church, who has been consecrated since the year 1792. The persecution of heretics was, no doubt, formerly a doctrine of the Catholic Church; but it has not been the doctrine of the Catholic Church alone, but of almost every Church, except the respectable, and on such an occasion I would add the glorious body of Christians known by the appellation of Friends. The founders of the Reformation were not tolerant; for LUTHER, after maintaining his own peculiar views of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, anathematizes" him that says otherwise than he says, or changes one iota or tittle.* CALVIN was not tolerànt; *The above passage is taken from his defence of his opinions against Henry the VIIIth. He could sometimes use language |