firm to yield where conscience opposes it; and who has the penetration and wisdom to see, that the most dangerous argument which his enemies could wish to have against him would be, that his faith had been violated. And it may be much questioned whether even ignorance could palliate a wish, that he should act in any degree so, as to afford the real grounds for the presumption of it.

In a case of conscience, example is neither a safe argument, nor a justification at any time. The true question is, not who did so? but, was it right to do so? If it was not, the name is, if not immaterial, only the more dangerous as an authority, because of its pre-eminence.

The example of Henry VIII. has very little alluring in it. How, unless for a purpose of aspersion, this monarch could be any way considered as a founder of the Reformation, is very strange, Every obnoxious doctrine of the church of Rome, except that of Papal supremacy, he retained to his death. It is true that he took, and wisely took, the Government of the clergy out of the Pope's hands, and assumed all the temporal power of the Pope to himself, and perhaps (though unjustifiably) some of the spiritual. To serve this end he allowed the Scriptures to be read, but he was perfectly innocent, as to any intention of his, that a Reformation should follow, as it necessarily did. Trajan might just as well be said to have founded Christianity in the Government of Pliny, when he forbid him to persecute, as Henry to have founded the Reformation. But his allowing the

Scriptures to be read produced the Reformation? I most cheerfully grant it. It proves that Popery could not stand if all read the Scriptures.,

Having assumed the power of the Pope, he was taught, as to that power, that it extended to the suppression of religious houses by the Pope, Clement VII. and Cardinal Wolsey, who suppressed as many as forty for the maintenance of the College of Christ Church; and if Henry exercised the sacrilegious power with a rugged and unsparing hand, he did no more than what the authority of the Pope had taught him to believe might be done, without any impeachment of his protection of the church, though both did wrong in this respect.

As to Elizabeth, whether there was any clause in her oath, which prevented her from the reforming of the church by setting aside errors, which had crept into it, not having the form within my reach, I cannot say. But I presume not, as she was particularly careful to assert, that she was not introducing a NEW religion, but reforming the errors of the old one. And this was true. If blame attaches to her for this, so does it to the council of Trent; for ten, out of the twenty-five sessions, were considerably engaged in reformations; and if the forbidding the Scriptures to be read in the original, or the vulgar tongues, or indeed at all, but by special permission, was a reformation held to be justifiable, perhaps it may as rationally and as conscientiously be held, that the permitting them to be read was at least equally so. If that council, concealing the Scriptures, established doctrines unsupported by them, surely she was not

more to blame in assenting to the laying aside of all such. Her conscience might stand easier by far than the consciences of those reverend Fathers. When these objections are made against Elizabeth, it seems to be forgotten that, so far was she from injuring the spiritual rights of her subjects, she did in fact but assert them, and vindicate them from the tyranny of the Popes. How her sister Mary's conscience stood, when she brought them back to a slavish submission to it, would be much more difficult to answer.

The case of the church of Scotland, in the reigns of King William and Queen Anne, was one very different from that of the Catholics. That church is subject to no foreign supremacy; and though, as to matter of form, it differs so far essentially from the church of England; in matter of doctrine, where it does not regard matter of form, I believe the moderate men of both churches consider them as agreeing in essentials, and in what is of great consequence, their rejection of the errors of the Romish church. They were and are both true Protestant churches; and that of the Scotch church was, though not in the eye of the law, in fact the established one in Scotland. The act of the Legislature has since made it so, which was before a reformed church, and of the Protestant

* It is well known that several attempts have been made by some of the most moderate and best men of the churches of England and Scotland to unite them by a comprehension. Some account of the last may be seen in Doddridge's Letters. Much, very much, is it to be lamented, that it did not succeed. But, be it remembered to their honour, the failure is not to be attributed to them. I am unwilling to say more, without entering more fully into the subject than the present occasion will admit of..

religion, though not conformable in some things to the church of England.

When the Author of The Considerations, therefore, represents it as "a hard obligation upon the King, of swearing to maintain two religious establishments in their tenets extremely opposite," (p. 94,) by omitting wherein the opposition consists, he has himself made the difficulty. For there is nothing of those tenets, in which they are opposite, that trenches upon the fundamental truths and principles of Christianity, as to the faith itself; and therefore the church, that holds them, may be maintained without a dereliction of principle, though he who does so differs from it in other respects.

In what way King William considered the question, and whether he was justifiable or not, is now in the determination of that Judge before whom no subterfuge will avail. And though it may be presumed that both he and Queen Anne thought they were securing the reformed religion against Popery, in the most effectual manner then apparent, it does not follow that, though they did it rightly, it was right because they did it. The examples therefore are not to be drawn into precedent.

Here it is impossible to avoid observing, that though these high names are quoted, as it should seem, to authorize a departure from the intent of the coronation oath, there is no scruple in representing them as perjured. That neither Elizabeth, William, nor Anne, did think themselves so, may be inferred from the strong minds and principles of the three; but it is rather evident, that, if their examples were followed,

as desired, upon the contrary supposition, the charge of perjury would with no less readiness be attached in the latter case than in the others, should it be convenient as to further concessions to do so.

As to the cases of Canada and Corsica, so often referred to, they stand upon grounds perfectly distinct. They have no such connexion with the Legislature of Britain as to affect the constitution. Did they send Members to the British Parliament, and had, as they would have thereby, an influence on the British constitution itself; or had they formed a constituent and effective portion of the British dominions, in which the church of England was established, when the terms of the oath were settled; or had the church of -England been the established one in either country, at the time of their becoming united to England, they would certainly have come within the oath. But none of these was the case. Neither the church, nor the constitution of England, lost of their privileges, extent, or force; nor were they exposed to any hazard of so doing, by that which was done. They might be benefited, but they could not be injured. Nor was any thing more upon either occasion possible. Whereas, with respect to Ireland, the case is otherwise in every one of the respects above mentioned; and therefore neither of these cases can properly be drawn into precedent as to it.

The Author of The Vindication observes, (p. 118,) that "the Petitioners have abjured any intention to subvert the present church establishment." It is true they have so, and also "any privilege to which they are, or may become, entitled to disturb, or weaken the