cipation was much less able; but he cannot wish it more honourable, or more liberal.

Whatever were the circumstances of the plot, the penal laws against the catholics were carried into execution with great severity. Eighteen priests, and seven laymen, suffered death for the mere exercise of their religion; one hundred and twenty-six priests were banished, and the heavy fine of twenty pounds was exacted, with the greatest rigour, from every catholic, who did not attend the service of the established church.

XVI. 2.

The Oath of Allegiance required by James I. from the English Roman-catholics.

You mention the beatification of father Garnet; ---then inform us, that "the parliament thought "it necessary that an oath of allegiance should be "taken from every catholic ;"--that the pope forbade them to take it, as being "injurious to his "authority, and destructive to their own souls;" that "it was however taken without apparent scruple "or reluctance: but that catholic writers of the "first eminence abroad maintained the papal pre"tensions in their whole extent;" and that "the "protestants were thus confirmed in their opinion, "that the doctrine of equivocation, which was publicly taught by the roman-casuists, and the belief "of the pope's absolute power, rendered it impos

66

"sible to confide in the oaths of men, whose con-. "science was not in their own keeping." Permit me to say, that this representation contains many mistakes.

Father Garnet has not been beatified. Of this, catholic-writers have more than once explicitly assured the public in works of celebrity, and in considerable circulation. Perhaps you are not aware of what constitutes a beatification: When the canonization of any holy person is solicited, a commission is issued by the Congregation of Rites, for the purpose of ascertaining the general opinion of his sanctity and miracles. If the report of the commissioners be favourable to them, the process for the canonization is instituted: it proceeds through various stages, until it is ascertained, by the most solemn and strict proofs, that the party possessed the virtues of faith, hope and charity, in an eminent, or,—to use the language of the proceeding,—in an heroic degree; and that miracles were worked by him, or through his intercession. This proof being obtained, a consistory of cardinals is convened; a very solemn deliberation ensues; and if the consistory is of opinion that the proof required is satisfactory, the cause proceeds; and then, but not until then, the pope pronounces the party to be

66

among the blessed." This is termed "beatifi"cation." Here the process frequently stops.—A further process, in which proof of other miracles is required, leads it to canonization. When he is beatified, he is termed "blessed;" when he is

saint."

canonized, he is termed "sanctified," or Now, no process for the canonization of father Garnet has ever been begun; he has not therefore been beatified: it is even irregular to call him "blessed." If any roman-catholic writer has applied that epithet to him, (which I think doubtful), he unquestionably intended to use the word in its ordinary, not in its appropriate sense.

As to the oath of allegiance:-Some Transalpine divines carried their opinions in favour of the papal power so high, as to maintain that the pope possessed, by divine right, and directly, supreme power, both in temporal and spiritual concerns: others lowered this pretension considerably, by maintaining that the pope, by divine right, possessed directly no temporal power; but that, when the great good of any state, or any individual required it, he might exercise temporal power, or cause it to be exercised over that state or individual. This gave him, indirectly, temporal power in spiritual concerns. The latter was a general opinion of roman-catholics when James proposed his oath of allegiance; it is now abandoned in every part of the world, except the precinct within the walls of the Vatican: the English, Irish and Scottish roman-catholics have solemnly disclaimed it by their oaths.

The persons who took the oath prescribed by James I. disclaimed the pope's deposing power absolutely, and without any qualification; and abjured, "as impious and heretical, the damnable doctrine, "that princes excommunicated, or deprived by the pope, might be deposed or murdered by their

"subjects, or any other whatsoever." The pope, by two briefs, forbade the catholics to take the oath; and there is no doubt, although he did not venture to avow it, that it was on account of its disclaimer of his deposing power.-I wish that I could say with you, that "it was taken by the catholics with"out apparent scruple or reluctance:"-It occasioned much contention and heart-burning among them, and a fierce and long war of words ensued; ultimately, the oath was taken by the generality of the body, but it always had opponents. Nothing, however, in the dispute, warrants your charge of equivocation. Never did equivocation enter less into any conflict: nothing can be more explicit than Bellarmine's attack, or Widdrington's defence, of the oath. The Clarendon state-papers contain a multitude of documents, which show the fairness of the proceedings on each side. I believe that the views of James himself, in proposing the oath, were kind; the views of his minister appear to me to be, at best, very doubtful.

But upon what ground do you adopt the invidious charge," that the belief of the pope's absolute power renders it impossible to confide in the "catholics, as their consciences were not in their

66

66

own keeping." Permit me to say, that I spurn this charge; and to assure you, that, if all the roman-catholics in the universe were polled, all the roman-catholics in the universe would spurn it. A statement of the doctrine of the roman-catholics And see the Historical Memoirs,

* Vol. 1, p. 190. c. xlvii. xlviii, lvi.

upon this head being too long for insertion in this place, I refer you for it to doctor Milner's fortysixth letter in his "End of Controversy."

It is particularly strange that you should bring it forward in this place, as in two lines nearly preceding it, you have told us that the pope forbade the catholics to take the oath proposed by James I, yet that they took it without apparent scruple or reluctance. You assert, that the doctrine of equivocation was publicly taught by the catholic church: it has, on the contrary, been publicly condemned by her. Thus, when towards the end of the seventeenth century, certain loose opinions on the practice of it were found in the writings of some foreign divines, they were condemned, in the strongest terms, by a national assembly of the Gallican clergy in 1700*.

In a former page, I have cited lord Liverpool's liberal expression, that "he heard allusions that night to doctrines which he did hope no one "then believed the catholics to entertain:" is not the passage, which I have just transcribed from your work, a melancholy proof that there was not all the ground his lordship supposed for the hope, which his own honourable mind suggested to him?

Bausset's Hist. de Bossuet, vol. 4, liv. xi. s. 9; Histoire Générale de l'Eglise, pendant le xviii Siècle, Besançon, 1823, tom. premier, p. 362; D'Avrigni's Mem. Chronol, et Dogm. ad annum, 1700; and Picot's Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire de l'Eglise durant le xviii. Siècle, ad an. 1700. And see Mr. Alban Butler's Life of sir Toby Matthews, p. 17.