:

tical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign Powers repugnant to the same," (1 Eliz. cap. 1. § 19.) is at least as strong as the present oath of Supremacy and by the "Act for the assurance of the Queen's royal power over all estates and subjects within her dominions" (5 Eliz. cap. 1. § 16.) was required from every Member of the Commons before he should enter into the Parliament House, upon pain of being treated as if he had never been returned, in case he should enter that House without having taken the oath. Papists, however, took this oath, and so got into Parliament, as the preamble of the 30 Car. II. stat. 2. expressly states: and then goes on to require the Peers and Members of the Commons to take the several oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; meaning, I believe, the one oath to that effect under the 1st Eliz. cap. 1. § 19: and also to subscribe and repeat the declaration against transubstantiation &c. The 3d Jac. I. cap. 4. does not affect this oath, as it appears to me. The 1st W. & M. § 3 & 4, only substitutes, for the old oath, the substance of it divided into two oaths, already printed in these pages, as the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; which oaths are the same as those required in the 1 W. & M. cap. 8. § 12; and 1 W. & M. stat. 2. cap. 2. § 3; excepting, that the words power and jurisdiction" change places. There were Papists then who took the oath of Supremacy, and were thrown out of Parliament by the declaration 30 Car. II. stat. 2. If the declaration be repealed, the supremacy may now, as formerly, be insisted upon.

66

If the declaration were abolished, the three oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, are the only remaining grounds, that I am aware of, upon which Papists rest their present demands: and from these oaths I believe they wish to strike out only the supremacy of our King. How England understands that supremacy, is happily laid down, with the most scrupulous accuracy, both in Elizabeth's Injunctions, the 37th Article, and our received Commentaries upon its import. There is reason to hope, that, ere long, all oaths will become

unnecessary; that the Legislature will allow any person, who must now swear, to affirm, instead of swearing; and subject him to the same penalties as are now attendant upon perjury, should he violate the truth upon solemn affirmations, when substituted for oaths. It is not necessary to enforce the very words now in use: all that seems necessary, is a substantial promise of allegiance, and disavowal of foreign supremacy or influence with or without oath.

Although the fact be, that, before 30 Car. II., Papists did take the oath of Supremacy, yet it is difficult to understand how they could take it in full sincerity. To me it appears, that a Papist, while he remains a Papist, cannot take the oath of Supremacy; and that until he takes it, Protestants ought, by all lawful means, to try to prevent his obtaining any further power than he now possesses, to be exercised over Protestants.

:

"Character, though mostly the cause, is, by a common reaction, also the effect of laws and it is of great importance what opinions are held by those who have the making our laws in England. It is not difficult to see why Papists should wish for more power in England than they now possess: and they would probably receive it, but for their own hierarchy. There is inseparably attached to any priesthood much political influence over their flocks: and the direct tendency of Popish influence is to overthrow the Church and State of England. And the same tendency must there exist, varying only in degree, wherever any priesthood requires obedience or belief on any other authority than that of the Bible, by any other arguments than such as address themselves to the reason. requires great consideration before any further power is given to Papists, whose influence must be powerful: for their religion is very near superstition, and is built upon the passions that should die away from the heart, and is shaped for their indulgence and pardon. The Papist now, when he is bidden by his priest, pays his money to a foreign power, friend or foe, as it may happen; and holds his spiritual welfare independent of

It

his native land, and dependent upon his compliance with the commands of an alien; at the same time that that alien, if he reason consistently from his own premises, must be set against England. It must be kept in mind, that Popish priests never deny to their own community that ultimate salvation which they never concede to those out of their community. What is doubly miscalled Catholic Emancipation, is not a question of religion, and should not be represented as such. If the faith of the Papist be inconsistent with his fealty, the Pope is to blame, not the King of England; and the question should be argued at Rome, not here."-Church Inquiry, p. 35.

From the "Minutes of Evidence on the State of Ireland," Vol. IX. p. 564, it appears that the Pope and Popish priesthood have often checked the feelings that would else have induced the Popish laity to take an oath of Allegiance. The present Coronation Oath is as follows :

(1 W. & M. cap. 6.)

"The Archbishop or Bishop shall say, 'Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the Statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?'

"The King and Queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.'

66

Archbishop or Bishop, Will you to your power cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments?'

66 King and Queen, 'I will.'

66

6

Archbishop or Bishop, Will you to the uttermost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this realm, and to the Churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them ?'

6

"King and Queen, All this I promise to do.'

"After this, the King and Queen, laying his and her hand upon the Holy Gospels, shall say, 'The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.''

The Bill of Rights further requires the King and Queen to

make, subscribe, and repeat the declaration of 30 Car. II.; and

How far any alteration advisable, is a question

so does 12 & 13 W. III. cap. 2. § 2. of this oath or obligation may be foreign to the present purpose. Any undertaking, in any shape by any body, to resist all change, as change, argues nothing that is right, and much that is wrong: and they who think that oath precludes change, ought on that ground to endeavour to modify the oath, so as to allow our King to concede what his subjects would concede: and himself to believe, that the best plan for the nation, which the whole nation may at any given time agree to consider such. They who advise the Crown of England to resist over and over again the repeated proposals of the two Houses of Parliament, do not in that respect act like patriots or good subjects; and for the consequences of such advice, they must hold themselves responsible. For myself, I should feel this oath an inseparable obstacle to the admission of Papists into our Legislature: and am therefore sorry, that if such a concession is to be made in the present reign, a declaratory Act is not first passed, expressing the belief of both Houses that such concession is consistent with such oath. It might be advisable to repeal the oath before the King's coronation in one reign; or make the concession in the next: for the subjects who impose the oath cannot, by any act of theirs, absolve the conscience of him upon whom they have imposed it, from what he knew was the purpose and believes to be the literal obligation of the oath. The absolution from any such oath must be such as to satisfy the conscience of him who may have taken it, and must therefore be in accordance with his own opinion of what is right.

The name of Papist is disavowed by almost every one to whom it of right attaches, because it so truly describes the 'head and front of his offending.' Bishop Van Mildert, in the House of Lords, makes an apology for calling the Papists by their right name. If this name be by themselves held disgraceful, it can only be so because the thing it describes is disgraceful and there should be among themselves an objec

cause.

tion to that name which some recent statutes have adopted, and which they are said to like. If they do like this name, the words "Roman Catholic" are doubly unfortunate for their If they be Romans, it resembles an admission that some part of their allegiance is due to Rome. If they be Catholic, it is because they will not allow any class or individual the name of Christian, unless such class or individual be comprehended within their own pale. And to bring them within that pale, by any means, is in their eyes to save a soul alive for the outward profession is always deemed essential, and is often accepted as tantamount to the inward confession.

A distinction is often attempted to be made between a Roman Catholic and a Papist in England; whereby many men call upon our Legislature to privilege those who profess themselves Papists, as though they were not Papists, and were something else called Roman Catholics. But surely the State of England is not to determine the character of those, who petition in one character, for what they will hold in that character, and yet pretend that they are not of that character. If they be not what they call themselves, let them set forth what they are, before their demands are taken into consideration; and explain to us the grounds on which we are to disbelieve their creeds and oaths and solemn formularies, and believe their words uttered in the same breath with those creeds, oaths, and formularies. They have brought themselves into this state. The Pope will not sanction their disavowal of him: and without such a sanction, they have themselves declared their disavowal of none effect. The declaration of the Catholic Bishops, the Vicars Apostolic, and their co-adjutors in Great Britain, published about two years ago, has been too often commented upon to require any special notice now. Its principles are at variance with the plain construction of the established creeds of the Papists and the avowal of such principles seems to me irreconcilable with the oaths of the Papist bishops and priests, as

C