some confirmation from a passage in the Athenæ Oxonienses*, where, on the authority of a manuscript Review of the Court of king James, by Goodman, bishop of Gloucester, Mr. Wood mentions, that "sir Christopher Perkins,"-(for the jesuit had been created a knight)," had a hand in contriving "and drawing up the oath of allegiance, while "he was intimate with Dr. Bancroftt." It receives a further confirmation, from a passage in cardinal Bentivoglio's Relationi delle Provincie, in which, as he is translated in the Answer to the Memoirs of Panzani§, his eminence,-alluding to the oath of allegiance, says, that," in contriving "this new machine against the catholic religion, "the authors had principally two things in view: one was, to furnish the king an opportunity of proceeding with an increase of rigour against "the persons and property of catholics; it being

66

easily foreseen, that many of them would refuse "the oath, in which heretical terms were used to "deny all authority of the Roman pontiffs, under "whatsoever interpretation and form, in temporal "affairs of princes ||:-the other was, to give new * Vol. i. p. 22.

+ That Bancroft was concerned in framing the oath, and intended it should occasion a disunion among the catholics, is confirmed by a passage in Osborne's Secret History of the Court of James the First. Ballantyne's edition, page 61. ✰ Page 215.

§ Page 159.

A remarkable expression :-it shows that the main objection of the pope and his adherents to the oath, was its rejection of the pope's deposing power, and not merely to the terms in which the doctrine asserting it was described.

"occasion to the discontents among the catholic clergy; it being held for certain, that several of them, either through dread of punishment, or through tepidity in religion would be induced "to swallow the oath; and to advise others to "follow their example*."—It is probable that some, at least, of his majesty's ministers were not so favourably disposed towards the catholics as their royal master. But that James's own views in the framing of this oath, were most benign, the writer has not discovered any just reason to doubt. In the controversy respecting the lawfulness of the use of the Chinese rites by the converts to christianity, the jesuits contended that they were merely civil, and on that account unobjectionable. In confirmation of their opinion, they appealed to the testimony of the emperor and his council; it was favourable to them, and they justly thought it entitled to the greatest weight. Nothing can be more preposterous than the attempts of the jansenists to criminate the jesuits for their appealing to the Chinese for the meaning in which they themselves understood the controverted word. It was the same with James's oath: whether the meaning of it was orthodox, was a point of theology, and belonged to the cognizance of the church; but what the meaning of James was when he framed it, was best known to James himself.

In support of the allegation respecting the sinister views of the framers of the oath, intentional obscu

In a future page, we shall transcribe a further extract from this work.

rity and objectionable language were imputed to some of its clauses; and the words "impious," "heretical," and "damnable," used in describing the imposing doctrine, were severely condemned*. It must be admitted, that each of these words was singularly improper.

The great objection, however, to the oath, was its absolute denial of the pope's deposing power. This," says the rev. Roger Widdrington, the learned and able benedictine advocate of the oath, "was the rock of scandal, the stone of offence, on "which the bulk of the learned and the unlearned "of those times generally stumbled."-Even the illustrious Bellarmine, (for that epithet is justly due to his virtues, his learning, and his talents)‡, maintains, that "the assertion,-that the pope, as pope, "and by divine right, has no temporal power, and "cannot, in any manner, command secular persons,

or deprive them of their kingdoms and sove"reignty, though they deserve to be deprived of "them, is not so much an opinion as a heresy." This was the burthen of many a page, which the cardinal and his collaborators published, in support of the briefs, which, as will be seen immediately, Paul the fifth issued against the oath. This, therefore, to repeat Widdrington's words, was, the petra scandali, the lapis offensionis. Had the parties

* See Ecclesiastical Democracy Detected; by the Rev. John Milner, 1793, 8vo.

+ Disputatio Theologica de juramento Fidelitatis, ch. iii. § 1.

↑ De Romano Pontifice, lib. iii. c. 1.

1

agreed on this point, there would have been no final disagreement between them *.-In a future page, the complete rejection of the pope's deposing power, by the present English, Scottish, and Irish catholics, in the oaths prescribed to them in the present reign, will be mentioned.

XLVII. 2.

The Oath of Allegiance framed by James the first. THE oath is expressed in the following terms: "I, A. B. do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience, "before God and the world, that our sovereign "lord king James is lawful and rightful king of "this realm, and all other his majesty's dominions "and countries; and that the pope, neither of

66

* On the denial itself of the pope's deposing power, not on the language in which that denial was expressed, father Juvençi (Historia Soc. Jesu, lib. xiii. §4.) grounds his objection to the oath: "Singulos in certa verba jurare jussit, quibus eam summo pontifici auctoritatem abrogabat, quam in"esse illi confitentur quicunque ipsum Christi vicarium, et summum ecclesiæ pastorem agnoscunt: quam christianus "orbis, in concilio Lateranensi congregatus, ipsi concessam "professus est." A very different construction of this decree, if it be such, of the fourth council of Lateran, has been contended for by Dr. Hay, Dr. Milner, Mr. Lingard, Mr. Potts, and other catholic writers. Bossuet led the way to all that has been said on this subject, by his discussion, in the 4th book of his Défense de la Déclaration du Clergé de France— sur le genre des loix, que l'Eglise impose, du consentement des Princes, et avec le secours de leur loix, &c. &c. On this famous article of the fourth council of Lateran, Mr. Plowden's Church and State, book ii. c. 7, may be usefully consulted.

"himself, nor by any authority of the church or "see of Rome, or by any other means with any "other, hath any power or authority to depose "the king, or to dispose of any of his majesty's kingdoms or dominions; or to authorize any foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his "countries; or to discharge any of his subjects of "their allegiance and obedience to his majesty; "or to give license or leave to any of them to bear

arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or "hurt to his majesty's royal person, state, or go"vernment, or to any of his majesty's subjects, "within his majesty's dominions.

"Also, I do swear, from my heart, that, notwith"standing any declaration, or sentence of excommu"nication, or deprivation made or granted, or to be "made or granted, by the pope or his successors, or

66

by any authority derived, or pretended to be deแ rived, from him or his see, against the said king, "his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the

66

said subjects from their obedience; I will bear faith "and true allegiance to his majesty, his heirs and "successors, and him and them will defend, to the "uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies "and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence, " or declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best "endeavours to disclose and make known unto "his majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons "and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know "or hear of to be against him, or any of them."

VOL. II.