tice and tendency, that, waving every consideration of policy, nay, supposing for one moment that policy made entirely for them, still on Scriptural grounds they ought to be excluded from any share in the Legislature of Great Britain and Ireland. It may be thought wrong in such an one as myself to take up this high ground; but it is in fairness due to those who differ from me, to stand committed: a good and sufficient alteration might be, the repeal of the Declaration for the present. If, hereafter, need were, it might be re-enacted, leaving out a word so far ambiguous in its application as "Idolatry," and changing the condemnation of the sins and errors of Popery into a positive assertion that they were contrary to the known word of God: or it might be better to leave out of the Declaration the second sentence altogether.

The proper order for considering the propriety of any measure proposed in Parliament, appears to me, first, to consider its bearings towards our Maker; and secondly, towards the Constitution: and then its expediency. The first and second have been of late so generally satisfied, or so little affected, that the third, by being the only one debated, has seemed to be the principal, if not the only consideration. Hence the mistaken exaggerations of the value of expediency, forced into Mr. Peel's mouth by the Times of March 19, third side, near the head of the sixth column. When expediency comes into play, it is all in all; and nothing before: so that "public affairs cannot be conducted upon the principles of expediency," in any sense, which will not make expediency a secondary consideration.

The oath which was passed by the Commons does not appear such as to invalidate any of the objections here urged against the claims of the Papists.

Mr. Platt, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, has well objected to this oath, that it is such that an honest and conscientious Papist can hardly take it; and will feel himself in conscience bound to weaken the Protestant Religion, the professors of which he believes to be living in dangerous error, as to their

and the best pledges of her perpetuity;-till institutions of religion, adapted to this temporal state of things, shall give place to the better and happier reign of it, which is the main object of our Christian hope and faith."

ANSWER. It will conduce to the honour of our Church, to make her Members reasonable and independent members of society; and to take care that Papists and insidious friends do not wrap the beautiful edifice in flames.

REMARKS.

Mr. Davison cannot have enough considered the purpose and effect of those laws, which he first terms "disqualifying and invidious, bearing hard upon other men:" and then implies, that the Church leans upon them with great anxiety, and so implies it, that many will be led by his question to say or think that the Church disregards, in comparison, the better supports which he enumerates. It is to be hoped that this tissue of charges unsubstantiated by any proof, and implications inconsistent with charity and the facts of the case, will not move the indignation of the readers against Mr. Davison, but rather their sorrow. such a sorrow may lead them on to a strong feeling, that justice and equity, religion and policy, must be on that side which such a man as Mr. Davison has thought proper to attack by such Considerations as these.

And

The best and happiest institutions of religion on earth must have wholesome discipline and forms, upon which it is dependent, and by which it is to be enforced. "In this country it is necessary to support a religious establishment, if we intend to maintain our present rank among the nations of the earth."Eldon, p. 11.

"The alliance between Popery and liberalism is no new event. Every one of the measures which cost King James the Second his crown, were measures taken in the names of liberty of conscience, and the removal of political distinctions on account of religious differences; but our ancestors knew, that,

while he talked of toleration, his ultimate aim was really persecution: and, at their utmost risk, and with a profuse expenditure of their blood and treasure, they achieved the Revolution, and established that system of Protestant laws and Constitution, under which, for nearly a century and a half, this country has enjoyed a degree of religious toleration and civil freedom unknown in any other age or country."--Lord Bexley, pp. 6, 7.

Indirect temporal power is implied in spiritual power. The security which must depend upon oaths from Papists must always be doubtful, according to their own doctrine."-Class Book of Maynooth, p. 140, as cited in the 8th Report of the Commissioners of Irish Education Inquiry, p. 171. And we may see there Dr. Anglade's reasoning upon the obligation of oaths, and the seven causes that excuse it, and five causes that take it away, on p. 159. The seventh excusing cause, "limitatio intentionis tacita et sub intellecta," was not illustrated by a case as others had been; because no case occurred to Dr. Anglade at the time he was asked for a case, in which this cause would operate as excusing the obligation of an oath. The fourth cause for taking away the obligation of an oath is translated thus by Dr. Anglade. "The fourth cause is the making void of the obligation of the oath by the person to whom either the person who has taken the oath, or the matter concerning which the oath has been taken, is subject," p. 164: and on p. 165 the principle is admitted, "that in every oath a Papist ought always to understand that the right of the superior is to be excepted;" because “a man cannot bind himself to do in an absolute manner what does not depend entirely for the execution on his own will, but depends on the consent of another," p. 165. Dr. Anglade thinks that the Popish priesthood "have a power conveyed to them by Christ to absolve from oaths, in Matt. xviii. 19.

Dr. M'Hale, Popish Bishop of Maronia, and coadjutor Bishop of Killala, states distinctly, that during his residence at Maynooth, seven years as student, and eleven as lecturer, they did not there adopt the Gallican Liberties of 1682. They are con

tained in four propositions: the first denies the temporal power of the Church: the second insists on the supremacy of General Councils over the Pope: the third affirms that laws and usages in the Gallican Church, and also in others, should subsist without variation and the fourth, that the judgment of the Pope is not above being reformed or revised, unless it has obtained the assent of the Church. "I wish distinctly to declare, that we did not adopt what are generally called the opinions of the Gallican Church contained in the four propositions of 1682; which, if pressed to the consequences of which they are susceptible, would appear to be subversive of the due independence of the Church. I should also say, that the introduction of all the propositions of the Gallican Church would seem to me to lessen the salutary influence of the Roman Pontif, which we consider necessary for the interests of religion."-Quar. Review, Vol. 37.

The Gallican Liberties are given and commented upon in the 8th Report, &c. App. p. 156. The Hibernia Dominicana of Dr. Burgh, Popish Bishop of Kilkenny, censures these Liberties, and was, in consequence, disclaimed by the Irish Papists in 1775, ibid. Dr. Slevin's Examination, p. 203.

CHAPTER III.

THE words of Mr. Peel, in stating to the House of Commons the measures of Government, are taken from the Times Papers, March 6 and 7.

Mr. Peel" had been called upon to state the reasons why he now advised a course to which he had hitherto been opposed; and would attempt to make out his case, to convince those who differed from him of their error; and to satisfy the country, that there was more evil than advantage in continuing the present system." He should rather have proved, that the system he proposed was less fraught with evil, than the one whose continuance he alleges, and does not prove, to be attended with more evil than advantage. "The outline of his argument was this: We are placed in a position in which we cannot remainsomething must be done-we cannot remain stationary-there is that degree of evil in divided Councils, and a disunited Cabinet, which can no longer be suffered to continue;" therefore the Cabinet is to be unanimous in favour of Papists. "If an united Government ought to be formed; when formed, it will have the choice of one of two courses, and only of two:" but this does not follow, and is hastily said. "It must either grant the Papists further political liberties, or retract those which have already been granted them: it must either remove those barriers which obstruct the flow of the waters which are pressing on the Institutions of this country, or must throw back the current which has now set in." Metaphors are bad arguments: the barriers might be strengthened, or changed in position; the current might be diverted, or stopped at the fountainhead. The present system might work well, when in proper hands.

G