church, which relates to a temporal concern, or is to be carried into effect by temporal power. Such a canon or provision never had any legal effect in any state, unless it had the sanction of that state, and its legal effect in it continued no longer than the state sanctioned it.*

That this is the proper construction of the canon is proved beyond controversy, by a transaction, which took place soon after the council broke up. Pope Honorius, who succeeded Innocent, required the Emperor Frederick, to insert in the constitutions of the empire, a canon similar to the third canon of the fourth Council of Lateran. The Emperor inserted it, but with a material alteration.† Is not this a direct acknowledgment by the Pope himself, that, without the sanction of the temporal power, the canon, so far as it contained temporal provisions, had no effect.

The manner in which the Council of Trent has been received by Roman Catholic states, renders every discussion of this subject unnecessary. All the Catholic powers agreed both theoretically and practically, that, so far as the council affected to regulate temporal concerns, or inflict temporal

See Bossuet's Defense de la Declaration du Clergé de France, L. IV. ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, ou l'on demontre par l'histoire, que l'Eglise ne faisait rien a l' regard des Seigneurs, et des affaires et de leur consentment. See Goldastus Const. Imp. Tom. II. p. 295.

+ See the writer's Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics. Appendix, Note III.

penalties in their dominions, the validity of its provisions depended on their pleasure.

There is not in Europe a Roman Catholic state, in which the council has been received without this limitation.

IV.-Admitting, however, the authenticity of the canon, and that it cannot be defended on the ground which has been suggested, still the canon was not a dogma of faith, or propounded as such by the council; it was merely an ordinance of exterior discipline, which had no force upon individuals till received by the ecclesiastical power in what concerned the church, and by the civil power in what concerned the state.*

Thus, I have clearly and incontestibly demonstrated, that the third canon of the fourth Council of Lateran, expresses no dogma of faith, or article of Catholic doctrine, which, at this time, binds, implicates, or affects the persons or consciences of Catholics, either as a body or as individuals.

IX. 4.

Alledged insufficiency of Catholic Disclaimers of the Pope's Temporal Dominion.

You tell us, (page 98), that "neither our dis"claiming the principle,"-(of the Pope's universal temporal dominion)," nor all the Romanists "unitedly disclaiming it, can be sufficient to justify

* Dr. Milner's fourth Letter to a Prebendary.

E

a Protestant in believing the validity, though he "will not doubt the sincerity of our denial. The

power, which once claimed universal temporal "dominion still exists, and still asserts the truth "of the principles on which that claim was "founded."

In a further part of your work, (page 122), You say," These doctrines of the Roman Church "have been promulgated by councils, popes and "canonists. They must be rescinded by the same "authorities, or they may be again revived. The "Pope in council must deny them.Neither "the united voice of the Romanists in England, nor "of Europe, nor of all the universities, are a suffi"cient guarantee against it. The Pope, the council, the church of Rome, as we recognize it "by its government, must publicly retract the past; and then, and then only, the accusations "founded on history will be withdrawn."

I have stated your charge in your own words. You declare by it, explicitly, that "neither our "disclaiming the principle, nor all the Romanists "unitedly disclaiming it, can be sufficient to justify

a Protestant in believing the validity, though "he will not doubt the sincerity of our denial."

Our denial, You well know, has been given, and is continued to be given UPON OATH.

By the expression which I have just quoted, You declare, that "a Protestant is not justified inbelieving the validity of this denial."

Thus far, I understand You; but, when, after

saying, that "a Protestant is not justified in be"lieving the validity of our denial," You add, "although he will not doubt its sincerity,” (given as You are aware it is, upon oath),—I am not certain that I do understand Your meaning. In my opinion, the validity and sincerity of an oath, so far as respects the conscientious obligation, or the conscientious integrity of the person who takes it, are convertible terms.

Does this passage mean, that, sensible as You must be, that "telling a gentleman that You doubt his

oath," is offering him THE GREATEST POSSIBLE INSULT,-You thought that the insult would be gentler, or that the intent to insult would become debateable, by inserting the words " tho' he "will not doubt it."-thus, not expressly saying, but most unquestionably implying, that his oath may, with propriety, be doubted ?

If this be the meaning of the expression, it imports neither more or less, than that, You think Protestants are unjustifiable, if they do not doubt the oaths, which we have taken in compliance with the acts of his late Majesty.

Connecting this passage with your requisition in page 122, that "the denial, to be valid, should "be made by the Pope and his government," I conjecture, that the result of all You say is, that a Catholic's oath of allegiance, and his disclaimer of all principles incompatible with it, cannot be relied upon, because, while he takes the oath, or disclaims the principles incompatible with it, he re

1

cognizes a paramount authority, which can discharge his conscience from the obligations of the oath and disclaimer.

If this be the fact, if, while the Catholics take the oath, or make this disclaimer, they recognize a paramount authority, which may dispense with its obligations,—they are PERJURED VILLAINS!!! There is no medium.

And their villainy is aggravated, by the circumstance, that in the same oath, in which they swear allegiance to his Majesty and his successors, they swear to the disclaimer of the dispensing authority.

66

And, I do solemnly," says the Roman Catholic in this oath," in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare, that I do make the "declaration and every part thereof, in the plain "and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, "without any evasion, equivocation or mental "reservation whatever, and without any dispensa❝tion already granted by the Pope, or the authority "of the see of Rome, or any person whatsoever, "and without thinking that I am or can be ac"quitted before God or man, or absolved of this "declaration or any part thereof, although the "Pope, or any other person or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or "declare it was null or void. So help me God."

66

If your meaning be what I have represented,

THE CHARGE WHICH IT BRINGS AGAINST THE

CATHOLICS, IS MOST HORRIBLE:

AND IS MOST UNJUST.