LETTERS ΤΟ WILLIAM WILBERFORCE, Esq. M. P. DEAR SIR, LETTER I. I TRUST that while as a Protestant Legislator you feel so sensibly alive to the claims of the Roman Catholics, you will also remember that there are such things as PROTESTANT CLAIMS; and I hope that while you are stretching out your arms in such a comprehensive embrace as to take in the Africans, Hottentots, and Laplanders, you will not forget that Charity, to be worth any thing, must "begin at home," and that it is possible for creatures of our limited capacities, when we would stretch our powers in the pursuit of distant good, to overlook the claims of our own countrymen, and be insensible to the wants of our nearer kindred. I apprehend, Sir, that as a Protestant subject, I have at least as good a claim to the attention and protection of Protestant Legislators, as any Roman Catholic can shew; but as no man can serve two masters," I believe that no Protestant Legislator can serve us both, whatever he may pretend, or design; and therefore, that since the Roman Catholic is not the only claimant, although he may be the most clamorous, a Protestant Legislator is bound to chuse between our contending B claims. As a member of the Church of England, I consider that in addition to the ordinary claims, which I possess to the protection of Legislators in general, I have a right to look, in a more especial manner, to those of their number who profess to walk more peculiarly by the light and rule of those Sacred Scriptures upon which the Church of England is founded, and who also profess to regard the religious freedom we have so long enjoyed as the inalienable birthright of Englishmen. As a Protestant Father, I possess, perhaps, as strong a claim, that the Protestant Constitution in Church and State, which I inherit from my ancestors, should descend to my children, as I have that my property should be enjoyed by them; and in the same degree that Religion is better than money, I may perhaps be excused for feeling this question strongly without being stigmatised as a bigot. I can prove, that while things remain as they are, and the tolerant Church of England keeps her place, I and my children must be safe, and may worship God as we chuse, under the protection of our ancient laws; but you, Sir, cannot prove, that if the original landmarks and bulwarks of the Constitution should be annihilated, and the portion of legis lative and executive power which you claim for Roman Catholies should be conceded, the same toleration and protection will continue to be ours. At best, therefore, you are forcing upon me, as an affectionate adherent of the Church of England, ånd upon those of the same communion who are near and dear to me, an experiment, which, if it should perchance prove perfectly harmless, can place us in no better situation, religiously, than we are in at present, whatever it may do for the Roman Catholics politically; but if your experiment (which, to say the least of it, is a most hazardous one) should deceive your hopes, the Religious Public may look for indemnity in vain, when all the seductive influence of your ingenious (or as Mr. CANNING called it—delightful) speech, shall have evaporated for ever. In the event of a disastrous issue to the golden hopes, both of Spiritual and Secular Policians, it is evident that all the fair and well-earned fame which you have acquired from the liber ation of the Africans, will be completely overthrown by the way in which you will now inadvertently have forwarded the subjugation of Europeans, in the revival of that ancient and degrading system of Ecclesiastical tyranny from which the Reformation and the Revolution delivered us; and all the advantages which a distant quarter of the globe will have gained in its deliverance from temporal bondage, will be more than counterbalanced by the spiritual shackles which you will have unwittingly contributed to forge for Christian Europe. Your name, Sir, so far from going down, in that case, to our children with the blessings of our Protestant Church and Empire upon it, will descend to them only as a melancholy proof how far a well merited popularity may be abused at the very zenith of its elevation; and how easily a Senator who has deserved well of his country, may outlive his acknowledged usefulness, and by one grand and irreparable error, neutralise and desecrate the patriotic labours of a whole political life. I mean no idle compliment when I say, that the influence of your name and character is deservedly great and extensive; but in the same proportion that such an influence may be exerted for our common happiness, in no less a degree will that influence, be perilous and fatal, if any fundamental departure from the sound and well tried policy of British legislation should be the consequence of the course, which, after much of hesitation and doubt, you have at length determined to pursue. The errors of a private person (says Mr. BURKITT, in his funeral sermon for GURNALL) are like the defects of a pocket watch, which only affect an individual, but when persons of eminent station and character are mistaken, it is like the town-clock going wrong-it misleads a multitude. It is easy to conceive how Men, who do not either understand or feel the value of Religious Truth, and the importance of contending for it, should with one consent, determine to dis→ miss from this question every thing which affects its religious bearings, but that you and certain of your Religious friends should descend from the ground upon which LUTHER of old, and in more modern times, your own friend, Dean MILNER stood; that you should forget the noble army of English martyrs who have bled for that reformed faith which we now profess, and should lose sight of the great and eternal distinction which subsists between the two Religions of the Church of Rome and the Church of England, appears inexplicable upon your own avowed principles. As this distiction, however, has never been adverted to by you in the late discussions, I propose to make it the subject of my next letter. I am, dear Sir, Your most obedient and faithful Servant. AMICUS PROTESTANS. DEAR SIR, LETTER II. IT has appeared to me one of the most extraordina ry circumstances connected with the discussion of the Roman Catholic Claims, both in the great Council of the Nation and in general society, that so little stress should have been laid upon the fundamental difference which subsists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions. In the Upper House of Parliament, even Prelates themselves have omitted all notice of the subject of RELIGION, and conducted their argu ment against those Claims, as if the point under discussion were simply reducible to a mere question of human policy; while in the Lower House, we have seen Statesmen, avowedly attached to a Protestant Establishment, and personally connected with its principal Members, pursue the same secular line of argument, and treat the Roman Catholic Claims as if they were wholly unconnected with the question of Religion, and as if Protestants might still keep their own Religion whole and entire, even although the Roman Catholics should suc ceed in their present object. Nor is this all-not only do many Senators, who on other occasions uniformly support the established order of things, join, as with one consent, in sinking the question of Religion, when "Catholic Emancipation" is the theme, but certain cha racters also who are sensibly alive to the interests of humanity, and jealous of the rights of their kind; and above all, even some who (like yourself) profess more particularly to act under the influence of Religious principle, both in public and private life, appear alike to lose sight of the essential distinction which subsists between a Religion which is founded on the Scriptures of truth, and one which is built, in the main, upon human authority-between a Religion of toleration and charity, and one of intolerance and cruelty. The indifference thus manifested on the Religious part of this question is not confined to the ranks of legislation, or to the higher circles of society, but the same apathy prevails more or less among the middle classes; and in many instances, where personal piety adorns the individual character, and where the strongest proofs of the practical influence of real Religion on the heart and conduct are displayed; even here, the distinction between the Spiritual Religion of the Bible, and a Religion of external forms, is scarcely recognised; and good men in the simplicity of their hearts are willing to believe that this distinction may safely be laid out of the question in the consideration of the Roman Catholic Claims, fondly imagining that if their fellow Protestants would only be candid and liberal enough to concede those Claims, the Roman Catholics would be candid and liberal enongh, in their turn, to permit Protestants to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. This mode of treating the question, must either proceed upon an assumption that no radical and essential difference really exists between the two creeds, or else that such difference has no bearing upon the question of the required concessions. Now the plain matter of fact is, that there is an originał distinction between Protestantism and Popery, over which the lapse of ages and the influence of civilization have had no control-the Romish religion being no other than a modification of the ancient idolatry of Heathenism; and with regard to the opinion that the difference of the two creeds does not affect the question of the Roman Catholic Claims, the following con |