flocks from taking oaths which, if not allowed in a spirit of the most treacherous policy, would imply a separation from the communion of the Church of Rome. Let me lay down the doctrine of that church on this important point.

I will assume the most liberal opinion of the Catholic divines, and grant that the Pope cannot annul an oath in virtue of his dispensing power *. But this can only be said of a lawful oath; a quality which no human law can confer upon an engagement to perform a sinful act. A promise under oath, to execute an immoral deed, is in itself a monstrous offence against the divine law; and the performance of such a promise would only aggravate the crime of having made it. There are, however, cases where the lawfulness of the engagement is doubtful, and the obligation bur

*Thomas Aquinas, whose authority is most highly reverenced in these matters, maintains, however, that there exists a power in the church to dispense both with a vow, which, according to him, is the most sacred of all engagements, and, consequently, with an oath. Sicut in voto aliqua necessitatis seu honestatis causâ potest fieri dispensatio, ita et in juramento. Secunda Secundæ Quest. lxxxix. Art. ix. The popes, in fact, have frequently exercised this dispensing power with the tacit consent of the church,

densome, or, by a change of circumstances, inexpedient and preposterous. The interference of the Pope, in such cases, is, according to the liberal opinion which I am stating, improperly called dispensation. The Pope only declares that the original oath, or vow, was null and void, either from the nature of the thing promised, or from some circumstances in the manner and form of the promise; when, by virtue of his authority, the head of the church removes all spiritual responsibility from the person who submits himself to his decision. I do not consider myself bound to confirm the accuracy of this statement by written authorities, as I do not conceive the possibility of any Roman Catholic divine bringing it into question.

The Roman Catholic doctrine on the obligation of oaths being clearly understood, sincere members of that church can find no difficulty in applying it to any existing test, or to any oath which may be tendered, in future, with a view to define the limits of their opposition to doctrines and practices condemned by Rome. In the first place, they cannot but see that an oath binding them to lend a

direct support to any Protestant establishment, or to omit such measures as may, without finally injuring the cause of Catholicism, check and disturb the spread and ascendency of error; is in itself sinful, and cannot, therefore, be obligatory. In the second place it must be evident that if, for the advantage of the Catholic religion suffering under an heterodox ascendancy, some oaths of this kind may be tolerated by Catholic divines, the head of that church will find it his duty to declare their nullity upon any change of circumstances. The persevering silence of the Papal see in regard to this point, notwithstanding the advantages which an authorized declaration would give to the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, is an indubitable proof that the Pope cannot give his sanction to engagements made in favour of a Protestant establishment. Of this, Bossuet himself was aware, when to his guarded opinion upon the scruples of James II. against the coronation oath, he subjoined the salvo:-" I nevertheless submit with all my heart to the supreme decision of his Holiness." If that decision, however, was then, and is now, withheld, notwithstanding the

disadvantages to which the silence of Rome subjects the Roman Catholics, it cannot be supposed that it would at all tend to remove them. To such as are intimately acquainted with the Catholic doctrines, which I have just laid before you, the conduct of the Roman see is in no way mysterious.

It would be much more difficult to explain upon what creditable principle of their church, the Catholic divines of these kingdoms can give their approbation to oaths tendered for the security of the Protestant establishment. The clergy of the church of England have been involved in a general and indiscriminate charge of hypocrisy and simulation, upon religious matters. It would ill become one in my peculiar circumstances to take up the defence of that venerable body*; yet I cannot dismiss this subject without most solemnly attesting, that the strongest impressions which enliven and support my Christian faith, are derived from my friendly intercourse with members

* Since writing this passage, a most spirited and modest defence of the church of England clergy has been published by Doctor Blomfield, Lord Bishop of Chester.

of that insulted clergy; while, on the contrary, I knew but very few Spanish priests whose talents or acquirements were above contempt, who had not secretly renounced their religion. Whether something similar to the state of the Spanish clergy may not explain the support which the Catholic priesthood of these kingdoms, seem to give to oaths so abhorrent from the belief of their church, as those which must precede the admission of members of that church into parliament; I will not undertake to say. If there be conscientious believers among them, which I will not doubt for a moment, and they are not forced into silence, as I suspect it is done in similar cases*, I feel assured that they will earnestly deprecate, and condemn all engagements on the part of the Roman Catholics, to support and

* I recollect something about the persecution of one Mr. Gandolphy, a London priest, who was obliged to appeal personally to Rome against the persecution of his brethren, for exposing too freely the doctrines which might increase the difficulties of Catholic emancipation. The Pope did not condemn him.—Since writing this note I have seen the case of Mr. Gandolphy stated in an able publication of the Rev. George Croly, entitled Popery and the Popish Question. Mr. G.'s doctrines were highly approved at Rome.