"nans in Excelsis, etc." against Queen Elizabeth, deposing her, placing her kingdom under an interdict, and absolving her subjects from their allegiance? Happily, though the power of enforcing all this was at that time departed; yet the Bull itself sufficiently shows, what would have been the consequences, had that power remained.

What conclusion, then, is to be drawn from all this, but the following? That, if the bishops of Rome themselves hold all oaths of allegiance (except to themselves) in so little estimation;-if the general council of Constance has shown, that the most solemn engagements (even that of an emperor with one of his own subjects) can be violated by the Church of Rome, for the sake of entrapping and destroying a HERETIC;--if oaths, that contravene the advantage and authority of that Church, are declared by the third general council of Lateran to be rather perjuries than oaths;-and if the Council of Clermont decreed that ecclesiastics should not take an oath of allegiance to kings, or any other LAY rulers ;-if, moreover, the Romanist pledges himself (in the Creed of Pius IV.) to "profess and undoubtedly receive all things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and general "councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of TRENT;"-then it necessarily follows, with regard to the consistent members of that Church, that "the obligation of an oath," in their transactions with a Protestant government, (that is, according to their principles, with a government composed of HERETICS) could not be much to be depended

upon.

SEVENTHLY,-that they "divide their allegiance between the King " and the Pope." So they are still exhibited; and so their own Creed represents them. For how can THEY truly profess undivided allegiance to the KING, as supreme head of the Church within his dominions; and over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, therein supreme, as his prerogative justly requires,—WHO "promise "and swear true obedience to THE ROMAN BISHOP, the successor of St. "Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ?" The assertion of the possibility of this is a contradiction in terms, and argues no small degree of mental reservation, at least, on the part of those who advance it.* In truth, the banns, which in this case are proposed for publication, must be forbidden: the parties are not, and cannot be, agreed. See Article XII. of their Creed; and the peculiar circumstances detailed under the last head.

Upon this momentous subject, therefore, the masterly argument of the Earl of Liverpool, in his speech in the House of Lords on the 17th of May, 1825, will ever be deemed conclusive by all those who are in any degree acquainted with the genuine principles and spirit of popery.

"The noble Lords opposite," said his Lordship, "maintained that it "was fitting to grant the concessions demanded, because the Catholics "of this country and Ireland were entitled to enjoy equal rights and "immunities with their Protestant brethren: and upon this broad principle he was at issue with them. He admitted, that all subjects

* But see more on this subject in Sect. VIII.

"Upon inquiry of those most likely to be well informed upon "the subject, of the probable cause of Dr. Challoner's omission of "the passage in his editions of the Profession of Faith of Pius IV. "I understand, that the clause is always retained when the oath is "tendered to PRIESTS, and always omitted when the oath is ten"dered to the LAITY; and that the latter (for till lately priests "were very seldom ordained in England) being of most frequent use "in this country, Dr. Challoner naturally thought it was most proper "to publish the profession in that form."

Thus, as Mr. White has well observed, Dr. Challoner has gar"bled the most sacred document that ever issued from an authority " which he believed to be infallible and divine: and no human in"genuity can acquit him of having abetted a plan of indirect or nega"tive deception; not to disclaim, but conceal or disguise, an important part of his faith and duty; not to free the Roman Catholic "LAITY from the obligation of promoting the exclusive sway of their "faith and Church system, but to keep that obligation in abeyance, "to cherish it in the bosoms and consciences of the CLERGY, ready "to be instilled into the minds of their spiritual subjects at the con'fessional, whenever they should have it in their power, by direct or "indirect means, to forward the interests of POPERY."I

And, as "the Ordo Administrandi Sacramenta,' published under "the sanction of the CATHOLIC BISHOPS in this country," has continued the same scheme of deception to the present time, therefore they also are evidently implicated in the same intention to deceive.

Letter to Charles Butler, Esq. 1826. p. 29.

66

66

"in a free state were entitled to the enjoyment of equal rights upon equal conditions; but then, the qualification of that principle in the case of the Catholics was clear: the Catholics, who demanded these equal rights, did not afford equal conditions. The difference was "this: the Protestant gave an entire allegiance to his sovereign; the "Catholic a divided one: the service of the former was complete; "that of the latter only qualified: and, unless it could be proved that "the man who worked for half a day was entitled to as much wages as the man who worked the whole day, or, in other words, that the half was equal to the whole, he could not admit that the Roman "Catholic, whose allegiance was divided between a spiritual and a temporal master, was entitled to the enjoyment of the same civil rights and privileges as the Protestant, whose allegiance was un"divided, and who acknowledged but one ruler."-Extracted from the Report of the Speech in the Annual Register for 1825.

EIGHTHLY, that they "hold the uncharitable doctrine of exclusive "salvation." This appears most fully from Article XIV. wherein they assert, that the Creed before recited contains "the true CATHOLIC faith, "out of which NONE can be SAVED;" and "promise, vow, and swear, "most constantly to hold and profess the same, to the end of their "lives."

NINTHLY, that they "claim the property of the Church establish"ment." To augment as much as possible, and to guard equally against any infringement upon the revenues and property of the Church of Rome, were the subjects of many of her decrees and canons in former times; and these would therefore be generally acted upon at the present time, if circumstances should permit. This claim therefore follows of course, if their other claims be conceded, if all the safeguards of the British Constitution are to be withdrawn, and they are to be freely admitted to political power. We have seen, that the emolument and aggrandizement of their Church effectually supersede the obligation even of oaths; much more then would they absorb the influence of every minor consideration.

And, LASTLY, that they "maintain that faith is not to be kept with Heretics." The decree of the council of Constance to this effect has never been repealed, or formally disavowed by any competent authority; and it is therefore still in force, to be acted upon as circumstances may permit. This appears from Article XIII.

Thus, in their own Creed, and in the authorities for which it vouches, and which the Romanists profess to receive, we have discovered ample proofs of the TRUTH of all those ALLEGATIONS of which the Roman prelates so much complain in this Declaration; and which they themselves, with great inconsistency certainly, as if they were ignorant of the principles of their own religion, have stigmatized, as imputing to them "the most erroneous, unscriptural, and unreasonable doctrines." 'Ek τοῦ στόματος σου κρινῶ σε, πονηρὲ δοῦλε. Luke xix. 22.

"Which have no connexion with civil or social duties," etc.] Have then these doctrines of the Romish Creed, that "there is no SAL"VATION" out of that "true and Catholic faith" therein taught, (Art. XIV.) which converts proselytism into a work of Christian necessity, and persecution itself into an imperious duty;-that "all "things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and general councils, and, particularly, by the Holy Council of TRENT, "are to be professed and undoubtedly received," (Art. XIII.)—and, consequently, that "bishops and priests" cannot lawfully "take an "oath of allegiance to kings, or any other temporal princes;" (page 15. No. 1.)-that "no faith is to be kept with heretics;" (page 19. No. 3.)-that" oaths, which oppose the ecclesiastical utility and jurisdiction" of Rome," are to be pronounced perjuries rather than "oaths;" (page 17. No. 2.)-that "all things, contrary to these" and all the other dogmata of that Church, are to be "condemned, "rejected, and anathematized;" (Art. XIII.)—and further, as we may perceive by the article that has been of late years surreptitiously withdrawn from the Creed, that it is the indispensable duty of Romanists placed in situations of influence and authority, under the solemn pledge of a promise, vow, and oath, ("spondeo, voveo, ac 'juro") "to take care, as much as in them lies, that this true CA"THOLIC faith shall be held, taught, and preached by those placed "under them, or those of whom they have the charge, by virtue of "their office;" (Art. XV.)—have these doctrines no connexion with civil or social duties? Are these doctrines purely religious? Yet they are established against them by the very CREED they profess; nor can they by any casuistry get rid of them, so long as they pronounce themselves to be "Catholics."

66

"Would first learn from Catholics themselves," etc.] Doubtless, they wish this. But, in referring to their Creed, and to their sacred canons and general councils, we have recourse to the fountain-head, from which the Catholics themselves" draw, or profess to draw, all "their real doctrines." And here we obtain them in their greatest purity, and unadulterated by any mixture of sophism or misrepresentation; which is unquestionably a great advantage. "The burnt child dreads the fire."

"And the advancement of religion," etc.] Query, what religion? The ROMISH religion: for the Church of ROME acknowledges and tolerates NO OTHER. As to the advancement of charity in this case, that is entirely out of the question, except it be of that

We are at a loss to conceive, why the holding of certain religious doctrines, which have no connexion with civil or social duties, whether those doctrines are taken in the sense in which they are misconstrued by others, or in the sense in which they are uniformly understood by Catholics, should be made a subject of crimination against British Catholics, by those who assume to themselves liberty of thinking what they please, in matters of religious belief. It is difficult to understand, why doctrines purely religious, and in no wise affecting the duties which Catholics owe to their sovereign or to civil society, should be brought forward at all, when the question relates only to civil rights and privileges, which they claim as British subjects.

It is much to be wished, that those who declaim against what they call the errors and superstitions of Popery would first learn from Catholics themselves, by inquiry, what their real doctrines are, on the points above alluded to; and in what sense Catholics understand the terms by which their doctrines are expressed. They would find perhaps, that they had hitherto been contending, not against the Catholic faith, but against the fictions of their own imaginations, or against their own misconceptions of the language of the Catholic Church.

Though we might refer to former expositions of the faith of Catholics, which we deem amply sufficient to correct the misconceptions, and to refute the misrepresentations of our doctrines; yet, it having been stated to us, that by publishing, at the present time, a plain and correct declaration of our real tenets on those points which are still misrepresented or misconceived, a better understanding may be established among his majesty's subjects, and the advancement of religion and charity may be effected; hence we, the undersigned Catholic Bishops, the Vicars Apostolic and their coadjutors in Great Britain, have thought it our duty to publish the following Declaration,