Графични страници
PDF файл

each of these branches separate and distinct, to deliver a report dt each department, and a final opinion of the whole.

The performance before us is the substance of the first report; and contains a concise description of all the landed possessions and revenues of the Crown in England and Wales, that are held, by leases or grants, for the remainder of long terms, granted prior to the passing the civil-list act of the ist of Anne, and not yet expired; or under leases, granted, since that period, for terms not exceeding thirty-one years, or three lives, excepting in cafes of messuages, which are allowed to be granted for the term of fifty years, or three lives, conformable to the limitations of the said act. To render the abstract as intelligible as it is comprehensive, the particulars are arranged in co^ lumns, under distinct heads. The first gives the counties in alphabetical order, with a brief description of the lands, houses, or other hereditaments, demised in each;—then follow the names of the lessees,—the dates of the last leases,—the terms thereby granted,— the periods of expiration,—the yearly value of the premises, by the latest survey, according to the Surveyor-general's report,—the sines received on the renewal,—the old rents formerly reserved,—the increased and new rents surcharged, and to take place when the old ones determine,—and, lastly, observations, on particular matters, contained in the respective leases.

From the above account of this work, our Readers will perceive its utility to all persons possessing, or interested in, estates held by lease from the Crown,—to gentlemen of the law,—to antiquaries, and to all who wish to procure information concerning the history of landed property.

The Editor has added three appendixes. The first contains an account of the land revenue of the Crown, in Queen Mary's time, anno 1555; the second is a compendium of the state of the revenue and profits of the Crown, in the 44th of Elizabeth; and the third is a calendar to the surveys of the estates of Charles I. his Queen, and the Prince of Wales, taken by ordinance of Parliament, during the interregnum^ ^m ,

/irt. 40. Resort of the CommiJJiontrs appointed to enquire into the State and Condition of the Woods, Forests, and Land-revenues, of tbt Crown. 4to. 12s. 6d. Boards. Debrett. 1787. This publication is nearly the fame as the "preceding. The report Itself is here prefixed to the alphabetical list, described in the foregoing article; but the Editor has not added the three curious papers, on the subject of the royal revenue, which are given in the appendix to the former publication, and which, in our opinion, are a valuable addition. The thanks of the Public are, however, due to each of these Editors, for the intelligence which their useful books contain.

We have consulted brevity in our review of this and the foregoing article, the rather because their contents are so fully, and, in some respects, critically, noticed in our account of Mr. St. John's book, on the fame subject. See Review for October, p. 260—264. Oj/»

Irish Catholics.

Art. 41. A Justification of the Tenets of the Roman Catholic Religion; and a Refutation of the Charges brought against its Clergy, br


'the Bishop of Cloyne. By Dr. James Butler. 8v,o. 2 s. 6d. Coghlan, &c. 1787.

Dr. Butler pleads the active part which he and his reverend bre>thren took, to suppress disturbances that the Catholic clergy suffered by, as well as the Protestants: and it is, perhaps, doing them no more than justice to believe him. But when he goes on to assure us, of the inoffensive benevolent spirit and dictates of the Catholic religion, in answer to what he deems injurious representations of it, as taught in the Protestant schools, we cannot but pause before we yield assent. '' .

It is not easy to avoid comparing the language of Popery, as a subordinate sect, pleading for toleration, with the same religion when armed with temporal power. In the former, which is the present cafe, tenets that, in the latter cafe, are hostile both to the fouls and bodies of unbelievers and heretics, are explained away, in a manner which, if it is sanctioned by the court of Rome, (hews how happily and commendably that court has reformed its principles. We have room, however, to imagine, that the papal court is flexible enough to qualify doctrines and precepts to situations and seasons; and that what must be admitted as orthodox in Ireland, would fall far short of that credit in Italy or Portugal. What kind of security we have for the uniformity of Catholic loyalty, may be conceived, when the titular bishops of Munster thought it incumbent on them, lately, to unite in a formal disavowal of the tenets of Father Burke, the titular Bishop of Ossory, who " violently reprobated" the oath of allegiance required from the Catholic clergy, as injurious to the supremacy of the Holy See '. But though Father Burke's doctrine of allegiance was condemned in Ireland, we do not find that it was condemned at Rome; we are indeed told, that he obtained no farther promotion, which is very easily to be accounted for; and we find, moreover, that when Dr. Butler represented the conduct of himself and his brethren in that affair, in a memorial to the Sacred Congregation 4c propapandi Fidd, all the thanks he got from the præfect cardinal Castelli, was, a censure for precipitancy in deciding on a business of such magnitude, without first consulting the sovereign Pontiffs.

Dr. Butler complains highly of the misrepresentation given of the Catholic religion, in the catechism taught in the English Protestant schools; and, among other passages, that where it is said—' It ii well known that liberty of conscience is denied in all Popish countries, and, that wherever Popery prevails, they endeavour to root out all that differ from them by sire and sword.'

To refute this assertion, he adds—' And yet we find that in France, which is a Popish country, Marshal Turenne and Count Saxe, both Protestants, were allowed liberty of conscience, and sought with it in the service of the French monarchy, more to the honour of that crown than any soldiers of their time: the finances of France, in a later day, flourished under M. Necker, a Calvinist; and the kings of France have thought it neither unsafe, nor impolitic, to establish an order of military distinction for Protestants, in their very palace. Those Protestants who have returned, without suffering, from the Inquisition in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, will bear testi», , 1 1 ■. 1. ■ , 1 , , 1 i> - 1-1

* Page 6c,. f Page 82.

mony mony to the falsehood of the assertion, that Protestants are exterminated there by fire and sword.'

But among whom will this pass for refutation? Will the excep^ tions of two or three eminent men, whose talents atoned for their heresy, shew that Protestants are tolerated in France? It is believed they are very numerous; but do the commonalty there resort freely and openly to Protestant chapels? Do they form an ecclesiastical government among themselves, under titular superiors, as the Catholics do in Ireland? Even supposing all this, why was France selected in proof, rather than Italy, Spain, or Portugal? If Protestants do now escape the Inquisition in those countries, and return, they have not always had that good fortune; and the question is not so much relative to travellers, as to natives: what then is the object of those stern tribunals? Let history decide.

History indeed, notwithstanding his confident assertions of the benign principles of the Catholic religion, is so full in his teeth, that it extorts a confession ill-founded, and delivered at the close, with an exceeding ill grace:

* That persecution, for religion's fake, has been carried to unwarrantable lengths, every man will acknowledge who has read the histories of Europe. Religion and policy were led hand in hand: an established church was found to be the most closely connected with the political government: and, accordingly, every state in Europe has connected them. If, in the eye of civil polity, it has seemed fit to carry the punishments of heresy to unnecessary, or unbecoming lengths; on that civil polity let it be charged. We have proved that such measures belong not to us, and are totally incompatible with our functions: If the Inquisition of Spain, and Italy, and Portugal, be charged on us, what will the cause of Christianity benefit, by our retaliating the Star Chamber, and the penal laws, that so long stained onr statute books in this and the sister kingdom, on the Protestant religion? The Inquisition is a creature of the civil power: suppose that it does exceed the proper limits, why are we to be charged with the transgression? And what answer should we have received from a liberal English juryman, whom we should accuse of cruelty, because, in consequence of his verdict, a priest, convicted of returning to his country, to exercise the functions of his religion, should be hanged? Exactly in the same predicament stand the judges of the Inquisition. They are divines, because offences against religion are the only objects of their cognizance They try those handed over to them by the civil power, as accused of heresies; and their province extends no further.'

The convenient connection, and time-serving separatiou, of civil and ecclesiastical powers, is too well understood, and is too gross an insult on common sense, to be honoured with any notice. If Dr. Butler could write this paragraph without blushing or smiling, we can with equal confidence produce it, as a full and sufficient key to his own pamphlet; so that nothing is needful to be added by any Opponent whatever.

In conclusion, Dr. Butler may, and we believe has, fully exculpated his own conduct, and that of his brethren in Ireland, se far as. relates to the recent disturbances; but he neither has, nor can extend


that justification to the tenets and spirit of the Romish religion, be-
yond the present profession of it in Ireland; where it is mellowed
down to a private sect, asking that toleration it never gave. He
may indeed assert a claim to toleration among us, who profess the
right of exercising private judgment; but it becomes him to preserve
a modest silence, and not to remind us of the treatment of Protest-
ant* in Catholic countries. ^Lt

Art. 42. Observations Oh the political Influence of the DoSrine of the
Pope's Supremacy. AddresseJ to the Rev. Dr. Butler, Sec. &c. By
William Hales, D. D. Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. 8vo.
2s. Faulder. 1787.

Dr. Hales taxes Dr. Butler and Mr. O'Leary, with imputing; assertions to the Bishop of Cloyne that are not to be sound in hi* pamphlet; the instances os which he contrasts in opposite columns. But Dr. Butler insisting particularly, that the consecration oath of the Catholic Bishops is by no means inconsistent with the allegiance of a subject to his prince, which is reserved by the clause, Salvo meo ordinci Dr. Hales replies, that ' whereas Bossuet only laboured to establish, the Pope's jurisdiction in spirituals, you proceed a step farther, and recognize it in temporals also; thus proving what has been so often and so reasonably objected to your church, the actual existence of an imperium in imperio. For if the bishops, in the Pope's territories, swear fealty to him, both in spirituals and temporals; and if the Roman Catholic Bishops, all over the world, imitate their example, in taking the said oath; the inference is obvious. They also swear fealty to him, both in spirituals and temporals; unless an Italian, and an Ultramontane Bishop, take the same oath in different senses; a supposition altogether inadmissible.' The chief purpose of this pamphlet, which, at the close, is only termed Part I. is to cite instances to shew, that this concession of Dr. Butler is perfectly agreeable to the decisions of the Popes, councils, and canons.

As to the saving clause, Salvo meo ordine, Dr. Hales finds it in the earliest oath .upon record, that of Gregory III. elected A. D. 731 ; and hence objects to Dr. Butler's exposition of the words, as meaning •without prejudice to my State, which are nugatory when sworn by a Bishop in the papal territories; and, from various authorities, resolves them into—Jawing the privileges of my OrDer; a reservation that imposes something different: from security of allegiance to the prince, in whose territories such a Bishop exercises ecclesiastical functions. QJ*

Art. 43. Observations on the Bishop of Cloyne's Pamphlet; in which the
Doctrine of Tithes is candidly illustrated, and his Lordship's Argu-
ments, for the Insecurity of the Protestant Religion, demonstrated
to be groundless and visionary. By Amyas Griffith, Esq. late
Surveyor of Belfast, and formerly Inspector General of the Pro-
vince cf Munster. 8vo. Is. 6d. Keating, ice. 17K7.
This whimsical production opens with an odd story, of the Author
being deluded, by a treacherous friend, into an opposition to the late
legal indulgence granted to the Roman Catholics; and of his being
ruined by him. Little method is to be expected from a writer, who
declares—' there are so many ideas floating in my imagination, that,
Ruv. Nov. 1787, Ff on


on my conscience, I cannot pen the half of them:' and—' I will assure you, gentle reader, that I never read a line of my MSS. but sent them to the press red hot from my brain.' Mr. Griffith is, of course, a very eccentric penman; he is a great enemy to tithes, contradicts the Bishop with little ceremony, disputes most of his representations of facts on his own knowledge, and tells his Lordship some honi4-triuhs with a good deal of blunt humour. *»

Theological Controversy.

Art. 44. Letters to Dr. Priestley, in Answer to those he addressed to the Jews, inviting them to an amicable Discussion of the Evidences cf Christianity. By David Levi, Author of " Lingua Sacra?* "The Ceremonies of the Jews, Sec." 8vo. 2 >. Johnson, &c. This learned Jew here meets Dr. Priestley on the ground of fair argument, in order, as he declares, to convince or be convinced. After disclaiming the knight-errantry of aiming at the conversion of Christians, he attempts to justify the Jews in their rejection of Christianity. He maintains, that their present dispersion is not the effect of their disregard to the pretensions of Jesus, but a continuation of the Babylonish captivity. The prophecy of Daniel (chap. Jx. 24, &c.) has, he argues, no reference to Jesus, but was intended solely to remove the doubts of the prophet concerning the duration of the divine visitation of Israel. By the anointed Prince, in the former part of the prophecy, he understands Cyrus, and, in the latter part,Agrippa. He denies that the miracles which Moses wrought, were the chief proof of his divine mission; and rests the evidence of his authority, principally, on the voice from heaven on Mount Sinai. He judges it unreasonable that Christians mould call upon the Jews to embrace their religion, before they are agreed amongst themselves what Christianity is; and thinks it particularly preposterous in Dr. Priestley, to attempt to convert them to Christianity, whilst he himself acknowledges the perpetual obligation of all the laws of Moses. He repeats several hacknied objections against the miracles of Christ, and against the books of the New Testament; and concludes with calling upon Dr. Priestley, to enter upon a re-examination of the Jewish prophecies, in order to determine whether they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. g

Art. 45. Letters to the Jews. Part the Second. Occasioned by Mr. David Levi's Reply to the former Letters. By Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F. R.S. &c. 8vo. is. Johnson. 1787. In reply to the preceding letters, Dr. Priestley complains of the want of candour, and of learning, in his antagonist; supports the authenticity of the gospel-history (exclusively of the narrative of the miraculous conception), and the validity of the proof of Christ's divine mission arising from miracles; shews that there is no inconsistency between the doctrine of Christ and that of Moses; and maintains, that no satisfactory account can be given of the present state of the Jewish nation, without supposing them to be under the displeasure of Heaven for their rejection of Christ; and that no rational explanation can be given of the Jewish prophecies, without admitting their reference ;o Jesus as the Messiah: ijistly, he again invites the


« ПредишнаНапред »