three next are severally upon toleration without an establishment; an establishment without toleration; and on an establishment with a toleration, and this either complete or partial. The fifth and last describes the most effectual methods by which an established church may support itself under a complete toleration.

The nature of Mr. Bates's work bears some sort of resemblance to a kind of alliance between church and state: and he goes over a considerable extent of like ground to that trodden by Bishop Warburton in his Alliance, and some other works. It is to the injury of Mr. Bates that we cannot get that great man out of our heads, while Mr. Bates's voTume is within our hands. For truly the comparison is highly to the disadvantage of the present writer. Indeed, what writer of such as men are now-a-days, oioi viv Bgorós sir,' would not be looked upon as a pigmy in the view and presence of the gigantic Warburton? In the first section of the part now before us, Mr. Bates assails the philosophic paradox, that a wise legislation is all which is necessary to make the world virtuous and happy, and that religion therefore is not wanted by, and is no care nor cončern of the civil governor. To overthrow this crude and senseless notion, and to convince the governor that it is his interest and his duty to take religion under his protection and jurisdiction, we should suppose was meant to be, and certainly might be a suitable groundwork and preparation to the following sections. But here we have an instance of the insufficiency of Mr. Bates's logic. For after a whole section directed against Helvetius, and Reynal, and Bayle, &c. &c., at the end the question is left undetermined, and the governor unconvinced whether religion is or is not within his jurisdiction, and therefore he remains, so far as he is to learn his duty from Mr. Bates, under no obligation either to tolerate all, or any religion, or to protect an established one; and we are left in something like the case of a man who should dream of erecting a mansion by beginning at the battlements, and descending down to the foundation.

·

The section ends as follows:

But waving at present, any abstract inquiry, either into the rights of the magistrate or the rights of conscience, in the concerns of religion, we shall confine our attention to a practical view of the subject; and procced to a consideration of the consequences and effects, first, of a toleration without an establishment; secondly, of an establishment without a toleration; and, lastly, of an establishment together with a toleration. When this is done, we may be better able to de

termine, whether in any, or in what degree, religion falls within the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate.'

And yet, as far as we can see, Mr. Bates returns no more to this important question, but leaves in this undecided condition that which, if our judgment does not greatly mislead us, is fundamental and essential to one half of his subject-we mean to that which respects the rights and obliga tions of the civil governor in regard to religion.

The argument of the second section is toleration without an establishment. From this we shall afford Mr. Bates an opportunity of speaking for himself.

Toleration has been distinguished by some into complete and partial. They consider it as complete, when a subject, beside the undisturbed profession and exercise of his religion, is admissible to every privilege and office belonging to the civil government; and as partial, when he is left under any political incapacity, though he may be permitted to enjoy his religious liberty in the fullest extent. This distinction and explanation, for the sake of perspicuity, we shall here ad pt.

The proper subjects of a complete toleration, we understand to be those who can give a reasonable security to the state for their be haviour as good citizens; those who can only give a dubious security, we consider as subjects of a partial toleration; and those who can give none, we absolutely exclude from the rank of citizens.

Accordingly, we allow no place in the scale of toleration, either to men who deny those fundamental principles of morality which are necessary to the very existence of society; such, for instance, as bind us to the performance of our engagements, or prohibit any external injury to others: or to professed atheists: or to those who hold the doctrine of intolerance. Not to the first, since it is evident they can give no valid security to the state for their good behaviour, who deny that any such can be given; not to the second, because (as Locke observes) promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist; neither to the last, since it can never be consistent with the public safety to tolerate those who only wait for power and opportunity to tyrannize over others, and deprive them of their most sacred liberties. These are exclusions whose necessity and justice is so apparent, that they are strenuously defended by many of the most zealous champions of freedom; among whom the name of Locke stands highly distinguished.

The question, as it respects the toleration of papists, is not so casily settled. Whether the members of a church which, for nearly a thousand years, has arrogated to itself, besides other dangerous claims, a right of deposing heretical princes, and of releasing their subjects from every bond of allegiance, may be safely admitted, in a protestant state, to a civil equality with the rest of its members, or

even to an open profession of their religion, is, at the present period, a point of particular importance, of very difficult consideration, and of hazardous decision. Locke, in his time, thought that popery was no fit subject of toleration; whether it is fitter now, will doubtless be well weighed by our political rulers, before they take any further steps in its favour. For, notwithstanding that it is regarded by some as an interest ready to die away of itself, it would seem not a little improbable, that an interest which has lived so long, and prevailed so much in the world, should finally expire without some convulsive, or, perhaps, some dreadful struggle. And I cannot forbear, on this occasion, to cite a passage from a French writer, who, though in religion a lying oracle, was certainly not wanting in political sagacity: "there is only one case," says he, " in which toleration may become fatal to a country; it is when it tolerates an intolerant religion; and such is the Roman catholic. This religion no sooner

obtains the ascendant in a state, than it is sure to shed the blood of its stupid protectors; it is a serpent which stings the bosom which cherishes it. Let Germany be aware of this, as its princes have a particular interest to enter into a communion which offers them large establishments; and when they are become catholic, they will not fail to compel the faith of their subjects, even by the most violent methods, should gentler ones prove ineffectual. The fires of superstition and intolerance are not yet thoroughly extinguished; a light breath would kindle them afresh, and set Europe in a blaze. Where the conflagration would stop, it is impossible to foretel. Would Holland be sure to escape? Would Great Britain be able from the height of her cliffs to brave the catholic fury? The ocean is but an impotent barrier against fanaticism. What should hinder it from preaching a new crusade; from arming Europe against England: from there striking root, and one day treating the British, as it formerly treated the Albigenses?"

May heaven manifest in the event the fallibility of human foresight; and pour down both on papist and protestant such a measure of knowledge and charity, as shall dispose them to lay aside their mutual prejudices and animosities, with whatever is erroneous or corrupt in faith or worship, and unite them in the bonds of truth and peace!'

In the course of the volume many other interesting subjects are treated of, and generally with that portion of good sense, useful learning, and benevolent intention which we have already described. We should probably have dismissed the volume with higher commendations, if it had not, from the nature of the subject, so often led us into paths which we have investigated before under the guidance of Locke and Warburton, and other prime dignitaries in the regions of sound literature.

ART. III.—A History of Ireland from the earliest Accounts, to the Union with Great Britain in 1801. By the Rev. James Gordon. 2 Vols. Octavo. Longman. 1806.

THE author of this performance is already known to the world, by a history of the Irish rebellion of 1798, in which he displayed a degree of candour and impartiality, not very. agreeable to either party, but particularly offensive to the loyalists. The same essential qualities of an historian are to be found in the work before us: and this is no ordinary praise; for such has been the wretchedly narrow and cruel policy of this government in its relations with Ireland, that an Irishman who can sit down to compose a temperate account of the wrongs and disasters of his country, must have obtained a most difficult and laudable conquest over his own feelings.

But when we have proclaimed the spirit of candour and moderation in which these volumes are composed, we have done all that critical integrity will allow. The head and front of their deserving, hath this extent, no more.' They have none of those charms which constitute the attraction of historical narrative, and their style is frequently obscure and enerally inclegant. We despair of being able to select a single passage which shall impress the public with a very favourable opinion of Mr. Gordon's powers of writing.

The copious discussion on the subject of Irish history, into which we were led in our consideration of Mr. Plowden's Review, &c. [Crit. Rev. June, 1805,] will greatly abridge the labour of our present analysis, especially as the dimensions of Mr. Gordon's work are, compared with that ponderous compilation, extremely moderate.

The first chapter contains a sketch of the geography of the country. The three next are devoted to a succinct and hasty account of its condition till the invasion of Henry II. Mr G. is entirely exempt from all prejudices respecting the power, the civilization, and the literature of Ireland, in times beyond the light of authentic history. The splendours of the Milesian dynasty are regarded by him as absolute fictions, and are dismissed in a tone of disrespect which, however offensive to national pride, we do not feel ourselves disposed very severely to censure.

The next eight chapters bring us to the reign of Henry VIII. and present nothing but a tedious and disgusting series of tyranny and rebellion. The imperfect establishment of the reformation, the conquest of the country by the arins of

Elizabeth, and the benevolent and well-intentioned government of James occupy five more chapters, and are related with sufficient clearness and spirit.

The disastrous reign of Charles I is treated with the same undeviating impartiality which distinguishes the whole work. The author does not suffer himself to be betrayed into any vulgar invective against the vigorous but arbitrary government of Strafford. Though not blind to the vexatious and despotic violence, with which that great statesman often insulted the pride, and trampled on the liberties of the Irish, he still makes a just and liberal statement of his merits, and of the essental blessings the country derived from the activity and wisdom of his administration.

The constant revenue was also much improved, the money well applied for the public service, and a sum reserved for extraordinary occasions. The army was well disciplined, v gularly paid, preserved in good condition, inoffensive to the peaceable subjects, and formidable to the enemies of government. Wentworth was a tyrant but his tyranny was tempered with wisdom. Sensible how much the power and glory of a monarch depended on the prosperity of his people, he was so assiduously attentive to the peace, intellectual improve ment, and industry of the Irish, that, though in ividuals often felt the arrogance of his temper, the nation in general had reason to be grateful for the benefits arising from the vigour of his administration. The church was improved in its revenue and in the respectability of its ministers. Protected by a str ctness before unknown in the execution of English law, unusual numbers, and with unusual attention, applied their thoughts to pursuits of industry, the conse. quences of which appeared in the rising value of lands, the augmented quantity of products for exportation, and such an encrease of commerce that the shipping of Ireland was multiplied a hundred fold. For the encouragement of traffic, this deputy, so zealous for the promotion of the power and revenue of his master, used his influence for the abolition of oppressive duties on the importation of coals and horses into Ireland, and on the exportation of live cattle.

• By Wentworth's endeavours a manufacture of linen cloth was established in Ulster. A nascent fabrication of woollen drapery was discouraged, lest it should come into competition with that of England, and for the purpose that Ireland should be dependant on that country for the cloathing of its inhabitants, and consequently less prone to a political separation. To make amends for this injustice, the deputy exerted himself so strenuously for the encouragement of linen, that he took a share in the enterprise at the expence, according to his own statement, of thirty thousand pounds from his private fortune. As flax had been long known to thrive in this country, and many of the women were spinners, hopes of success were early conceived. Flax seed was brought from Holland; weavers, from