you to examine the whole passage over again, and to be more cautious in future of showing yourself so careless a reader, or so desirous to meet with a blundering adversary, as to conceive that I could say, that a Roman Catholic might take the oath against popery, and still retain that name.

Since, however, you have obliged me to allude to the various oaths of security which have been proposed, and which, I believe, are deemed necessary by every one of your Protestant advocates, who is not perfectly indifferent to the interests of his religion; I will propose the sketch of a clause in that oath, which might, I conceive, be used as a test of the real and practical tendency of that doctrine of exclusive salvation, on which you and your Irish bishop are so fertile in modifications and distinctions. The clause I would propose is this.

And I make oath, that though I profess the Roman Catholic religion, I will, in the exercise of my parliamentary duties, promote the welfare of the Protestant Religion, as by law established. And I declare upon my oath, that I feel completely at liberty, in my conscience, to promise and swear

1

that I will support the religion by law established in this realm, because I do not believe that Protestantism, in itself, is a wicked or antichristian system, or that Protestants are, by the simple circumstance of their disowning the authority of the Church of Rome on matters of faith, excluded from any of the privileges and advantages of true Christians. I moreover promise upon the same oath, that if at any time I should change my opinion upon this subject, and feel persuaded that the Church of England is not a true Church of Christ, and that Protestantism is a system pernicious to the souls of men, I will immediately resign my seat in Parliament.

I do not pretend, Sir, to any skill in preparing the draft of a bill upon this subject; and there may be something very incorrect in the style and wording of my clause. But I hope that it is sufficient to meet your evasions. Can you, as a Roman Catholic, bind yourself with the above oath? Then your doctrine of exclusive salvation will give us no umbrage. If you cannot, you afford us a direct proof that we have not mistaken the

E

danger to the Protestant liberties of this country with which that doctrine is pregnant.

It is probable, however, that you will contrive such an answer, as that which I find among your remarks on my book, to the question which I substituted for those which were addressed, with the approbation of Mr. Pitt, to the Roman Catholic universities. The name of that great man presented to you the opportunity of throwing over me one of those small and transient clouds, by which, I find, you rather frequently endeavour to place your adversary in an unfavourable light. I notice it, Sir, because the moment approaches when I shall show that you are a polite, but not a fair or generous antagonist. "Mr. Blanco White (you say) expresses his dissatisfaction with the questions proposed to the foreign universities, and with their answers. As the questions satisfied Mr. Pitt, there certainly is reason to presume that they were framed properly." Here you wish to gain over the reader, by making him feel indignant at my implied presumption in trying to correct Mr. Pitt. Such arts, Sir, are miserable.

Mr. Pitt's extraordinary powers of mind could not give him that practical and intimate acquaintance with the tendency of the Roman Catholic tenets, and the legerdemain tricks by which that tendency is concealed, which I owe, not to any peculiar powers, not to any studies of which I can feel proud, but to the misfortune of having been subjected to a long and elaborate Roman Catholic education. The individual who lately gave us the interesting account of his early captivity among the North American Indians, might be listened to, with advantage, by the most highly gifted man in Europe, in case of danger from those tribes; and yet, in spite of that honour, he might well lament the great waste of time, the loss of opportunities to improve his natural powers, the hardships and the sufferings by which he acquired the knowledge, for the sake of which much greater men than himself would now lend him an attentive ear.

VI.

But I will, by your leave, return to my former question and your answer.

"Can the POPE, in virtue of what the Roman Catholics believe his divine authority, command the assistance of the faithful in checking the progress of heresy, by any means not likely to produce loss or danger to the Roman Catholic Church; and can that CHURCH acknowledge the validity of any engagement to disobey the Pope in such cases?" "My answer (you say) shall be short and explicit; and will, I trust, be satisfactory."

Your answer, Sir?-Was it not from a strong suspicion that the political bias of most English and Irish Roman Catholics, without weakening their disposition to obey the authority of their Pope and Church, had led them to misunderstand (I will not, when speaking in general, say, misrepresent) their doctrines and decisions?

Your answer?-It was to give weight to such answers that the expedient of consulting the foreign universities was thought necessary. I