You have succeeded in part, and you may succeed completely.  But in the present state of men’s minds and affairs, do not flatter yourselves that they will piously look to the head of our Church in the place of that Pope whom you make them forswear, and out of all reverence to whom you bully and rail and buffoon them.  Perhaps you may succeed in the same manner with all the other tenets of doctrine and usages of discipline amongst the Catholics; but what security have you, that, in the temper and on the principles on which they have made this change, they will stop at the exact sticking-places you have marked in your articles?  You have no security for anything, but that they will become what are called Franco-Jacobins, and reject the whole together.  No converts now will be made in a considerable number from one of our sects to the other upon a really religious principle.  Controversy moves in another direction.

Next to religion, property is the great point of Jacobin attack.  Here many of the debaters in your majority, and their writers, have given the Jacobins all the assistance their hearts can wish.  When the Catholics desire places and seats, you tell them that this is only a pretext, (though Protestants might suppose it just possible for men to like good places and snug boroughs for their own merits,) but that their real view is, to strip Protestants of their property To my certain knowledge, till those Jacobin lectures were opened in the House of Commons, they never dreamt of any such thing; but now the great professors may stimulate them to inquire (on the new principles) into the foundation of that property, and of all property.  If you treat men as robbers, why, robbers, sooner or later, they will become.

A third point of Jacobin attack is on old traditionary constitutions.  You are apprehensive for yours, which leans from its perpendicular, and does not stand firm on its theory.  I like Parliamentary reforms as little as any man who has boroughs to sell for money, or for peerages in Ireland.  But it passes my comprehension, in what manner it is that men can be reconciled to the practical merits of a constitution, the theory of which is in litigation, by being practically excluded from any of its advantages.  Let us put ourselves in the place of these people, and try an experiment of the effects of such a procedure on our own minds.  Unquestionably, we should be perfectly satisfied, when we were told that Houses of Parliament, instead of being places of refuge for popular liberty, were citadels for keeping us in order as a conquered people.  These things play the Jacobin game to a nicety.