ties, which, after all, the last article reduces almost to nothing. This declares that the Pope's decrees regard all churches, but how far is not specified; and unless this had been specified, many cases might occur in which the * ought not would be but a feeble barrier. The Pope's judgment is indeed said not to be always infallible, but the exception is a truly singular one; "unless IT BE FOLLOWED with the consent of the church." This is an admirable exemplification of the Hysteron-Proteron. Had it been said, unless he confined it to the decrees established by the consent of the church, though the extent of the power of his Holiness might have been immoderate, still it would have known limits. Here, however, those limits are dexterously left to be ascertained after it has been acted on as infallible; and therefore, though the Pope be acknowledged not to be always infallible, he is to be so considered, till the consent of the church determine otherwise!!

The truth of this business seems to have been this. The French King, alarmed for his own safety, and determined on having the Regale, found that by the assertion of the liberties of the Gallican church he could secure both; and the clergy wishing to oblige the King, and at the same time to offend the Pope as little as possible, drew up the declaration as it stands.

* The expression ne doit pas is sometimes used to signify has no right or no authority. But as the French language affords direct and positive terms for the purpose, and as such are used in the first article, the singular difference of the mode of expression will justify the above inferences, that of ne doit pas being at least equivocal.

Else, why were not those liberties more positively asserted? I must, however, do the justice to the French clergy to add, that, when even thus far asserted, they were maintained with much firmness. But they stopped too short. They should have gone as far as Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, in the ninth century, thought those liberties ought to extend; that is, to prevent all appeals to Rome; for, till then, their liberties must have been very insecure and precarious.

With respect to Protestants, the question of policy is, what security did this declaration afford them? The question may be answered in very few words. This declaration was enregistered, and so confirmed, A.D. 1682, and in A.D. 1685, that is, three years only after this confirmation, the Edict of Nantes was revoked, and more than half a million of Protestants driven out of France by a persecution, the cruelties of which were too horrible for detail; a persecution by that King, and that clergy, who had confirmed the declaration.

This however was only an ordinance of discipline! I grant it. It appears to have been, like Henry VIII.'s persecution of the Protestants, intended to prove a zeal for the doctrines of the Romish faith, after a contest with the temporal power of Rome.

What assurance then is there for the Protestants, from any, or the whole of the assertions of the Gallican church, being maintained by Roman Catholics. here, that if circumstances should give Rome the occasion, some one of her orders of discipline would not be issued and obeyed, when after the declaration ·

of the French clergy, the French Protestants were so soon subjected to all that followed the revocation of the Edict of Nantes? To say they would not be exterminated is little indeed. How much might there not be inflicted by orders of discipline, without actual extermination? Yet even in this assurance there is much weight, and I do not wish to lessen it. Very far otherwise, as a high respect is certainly due to all those who have in their own persons renounced the idea of the extermination of Protestants. Valeat

quantum valere potest. For though it has been necessary to shew, that the restrictions upon the Roman Catholics hitherto have had just and reasonable causes, it is no part of my wish they should be continued, if the causes cease.

66

When therefore the Honourable Writer of The Considerations puts the question, with respect to the Catholics, as from a stranger, Why a fourth part" (of the nation) "enjoy not all the rights of citizens," an answer may be given, which, to an indifferent person, would probably appear both full and equitable:-That they do enjoy all that the state has thought they could enjoy, without hazarding the safety of the rest. That it is not allowed that "the impression of the various causes under which the exclusion had been established have ceased to operate; and if it is perpetuated because they profess a particular religion," (p. 1.) it is because some of the principles of that religion have hitherto experimentally been found actively subversive of the constitution of the country that it has been continued; though it is to be hoped that those principles may

yet be so disposed of, as to permit the state to consider itself as safe, though it enlarge its concession somewhat further.

The question is said to be, "not what power has been claimed by Popes heretofore-but what power is ascribed to them by English and Irish Catholics of the present day?" This however is but a very limited and imperfect statement. The tide of public opinion has its ebbs and flows, from resistance to submission and from submission to resistance; and what is refused to-day may be yielded to-morrow, whilst the variations are within the limits of the efficiency of the general governing principle, and much more so whilst they may be caused by it, as long as the principle itself remains the same. If it is true that the spirit of the times does not yield as formerly to the direction of Rome; it is no less true, that the Canon of the council of Lateran remains unrepealed, and the censure of the Faculty of Paris on Erasmus gives a just and clear idea both of its force and its dormancy. At present there would be more to be lost, than gained to Rome by its being put in force. With respect to the higher orders of the Roman Catholic laity, their loyalty has been most laudably conspicuous, and will no doubt continue so. With respect to the clergy, though it has been so in some, it is far from having been so in all ; and with the great majority of the laity, it has been the very reverse. Now, as the loyalty of the lower orders in Ireland does indubitably depend, in a great measure, upon the clergy, those of them who do not exert their spiritual authority, which they claim,

to the utmost of its limits, if need be, do so far abet and encourage disloyalty; and it may therefore fairly be asked, why those excommunications, so powerful in disturbing states, should not be put in use to prevent disturbance? It is to be hoped, that, in future, the Romish clergy may be made so far accountable for the conduct of those under their care, and over whom their influence is so great. Considering the conduct of some of them, it is very difficult to perceive much difference in their principles from those of former times; and considering also how the laws of morality and religion depend, in the opinion of their followers, upon their statement of them, it is not a captious objection (it certainly is by no means intended here as such) to say, that the terms of the petition are not so clear or determinate as might be wished. If what is sinful or pious be determined by the plain and simple rules of revealed truth alone, and what is moral and immoral by it, and the generally received principles of civilized nations, we know what it is. The rules are ascertained with tolerable precision, and he who runs may read without much danger of a mistake. But where the laity are obliged to take their notions of revealed truth upon credit, and not permited to read the Scriptures, these notions may be presented to them with all the sophistications of a subtle casuist, and loyalty be a sin to be absolved. It is indeed the pernicious abuse of the doctrines of absolution and dispensation that has been the principal cause of the jealousy and distrust with respect to the oaths of the Roman Catholics; and the writings and practice of their