You must, I suppose, maintain the affirmative; -I maintain the negative.

2.-Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the overturning of the national religion of the country, and the substitution of a new religion, contrary to the wish of a great majority of the population, was moral and just, did morality and justice make it the right of Elizabeth and her government, to enact, that the adherence of twothirds of her subjects to the ancient religion of their country, was a crime against the state; and that every exercise by them of their hereditary religion, and even mere non-conformity to the new ritual, was, upon that account, highly criminal, and should therefore be punished by heavy legislative inflictions?

If it was not moral and just, Elizabeth's legislation against her Roman Catholic subjects, was wicked and barbarous in the extreme.

Converting the case, that is, supposing the government to be Roman Catholic, and the majority of the nation to be Protestant, would similar laws be justifiable?

If You answer in the negative, You are bound to produce some acknowledged general principle that justifies your answer: I aver that no such general principle can be produced.

I

agree, with Father Persons,* that "Neither

* Judgment of a Catholic living in banishment for his religion, &c. 8vo. 1608.

"breathing, nor the use of common ayre, is more "due unto Roman Catholics, or common to all, "than ought to be libertie of conscience to "christian men, whereby each man liveth to "God and himself; and without which, he struggleth with the torment of all-continual lin66 gering death."

6.

THIS IS MY CREED; and it is a great satisfaction to me to reflect, that, having advocated Catholic Emancipation during half a century, I never advocated it on any ground that was not applicable to every denomination of dissidents from a state religion.

3. But, let us advance further, and admit that Queen Elizabeth being, as I unequivocally admit and believe her to have been, sovereign of the country, both in fact and in right, did morality and justice allow her and her government, to consider it a notorious fact, that all her subjects, who professed the Roman Catholic religion, and therefore acknowledged the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, were from this circumstance alone, deficient in true allegiance to her; and that, on this account, both morality and justice sanctioned legislative provisions which, on the mere proof of their acknowledging the Pope's spiritual supremacy, or even refusing to swear to the Queen's spiritual supremacy, and without requiring the slightest evidence of their having committed any one act which the ancient law of the realm made criminal, subjected them to the horrible penalties of treason.

You maintain the affirmative ;-I maintain the negative.

I hope I have not mistaken Your opinions. What I have said leads to the inquiry, whether the acknowledgment of the Pope's spiritual supremacy is inconsistent with true allegiance? This must depend upon the nature of the spiritual supremacy which Catholics ascribe to him. It consists in the right of the church, and of the Pope as its head, to preach and teach those doctrines, which Catholics hold to have been preached and taught by Christ; and to punish the refractory members of the church, by spiritual censures, and ultimately by excommunication. Is this inconsistent with a subject's duty of allegiance? It does not deny the temporal sovereignty of the monarch, or his right to enforce it by any mode of temporal power.

These, both you and I equally recognise in the sovereign.

Has the monarch any power, merely spiritual?
Neither You nor I believe that he has.

Then, in what did the allegiance of a Catholic, and the allegiance of a Protestant really differ, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth?

Does not every Protestant communion assert the spiritual independence of her church? Does this claim trench on their allegiance?

4.-Popes, it may be said, have carried their pretensions to an iniquitous length: they have pretended to discharge subjects from their allegiance; and some subjects have been swayed by them to a dere

liction of their duty. Of this, You produce unquestionable instances; You also cite many writers who have advocated these pretensions.

I answer,-1st, That it has, at all times, and by every portion of Roman Catholics, been allowed, that the Pope's title to these rights is no article of the faith of the Roman Catholics :-2dly, that the claim of the Popes to them, has been repeatedly called into question, and contested with them in all cisalpine and many transalpine territories :-and 3dly, that all Protestant churches have advanced the same pretensions, and have incalculably oftener, carried them into execution. What millions of subjects in France, Spain, Germany, and the Low Countries, have not Protestants, in support of these pretensions, drawn from their allegiance? How many Catholic thrones have they prostrated?

5-Then, talk not to me of its following from a subject's being a Catholic, that his allegiance to a Protestant king cannot be depended upon, unless You admit, that it also follows, from a subject's being a Protestant, that his allegiance to a Catholic king is equally insecure.

Wait, I say, in each case, till a criminal act shall be done by the dissident, before You fix guilt upon an individual: Wait, I say, till numerous criminal acts shall be done by these dissidents, before You fix guilt upon the body.

In the time of the Commonwealth, when episcopalian Protestantism was proscribed,-did it follow, that every episcopalian Protestant was a traitor

to "the powers that were?" Was it moral or just, that his absenting himself from the religious service of the state, should be considered, standing singly, a deed of treason, and punished as treason? What should we now say of the French government, if it required all its Protestant subjects to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and attend the church service of their parishes, under penalties similar to those prescribed by the laws of Elizabeth?

I should consider it detestable: So to consider it, is perfectly congruous with my principles.

Consider the enormous length, to which, if You justify Elizabeth's persecuting laws, Your proposition must go. It follows inevitably, that there never has been, and that there does not, at this time, exist a case, in which, if a sovereign and a proportion of his subjects are of different religions, the sovereign is not justified in enacting legislative provisions, which make any exercise of their religion, however otherwise harmless and indifferent, felony or treason to the state, and punishable accordingly.

Beyond this, religious tyranny cannot go to its whole length the statutes of Elizabeth and, if You justify them, Your justification of them proceeds.

Thus, the conclusions which You draw against the Roman Catholics, from their refusal of the oath of supremacy, and in favour of Elizabeth's penal code against them, fall altogether to the ground.

H