number; and much lefs without drawing an argument from the conduct of foreign Proteftants, who at that very time were attempting to overthrow almost all the Catholic thrones in Europe! I with my prefent opponent and fome others of the fame defcription to found well the depths of their hearts, and to examine whether they are not difguifing to themselves, as well as to others, real fentiments of intolerance under fallacious pretences.

Dr. S. winds up his long note with the following weighty but inconfiftent charge: "I am much dif pofed to think well of the English Catholics; but I do not think well of a church, the heads of which have employed their fpiritual power in depofing princes and abfolving fubjects from their allegiance, and I conclude with confidence, that the principles of fuch a church, when carried to their utmoft extent, are pernicious to government and deftructive of civil fociety." The importance of the matter in question to the Catholics, to the government, and to the nation at large, will, I hope, excufe the freedom which I fhall take in difcuffing it, by comparing the conduct and doctrine of Catholics with those of Protestants, as far as they relate to the prefent queftion. I afk then in how many inftances fince the Reformation, or during the laft 300 years, have Popes attempted to depofe fovereigns and to abfolve fubjects from their oaths of allegiance. My adverfary speaks of this as the general practice of the Popes, particularly of Pius V, p. r52. The fact however is, that only two attempts of that nature, to the best of my remembrance, have taken place during the aforefaid long period, one againft our Elizabeth, the

other

other against Henry IV. of France, in the time of the League, both which proved fruitlefs through the oppofition of the Catholic fubjects of these fovereigns. And yet we are to obferve that a great number of princes, in the course of these centuries, have abandoned the Catholic faith, and not a few of them have even taken up arms against the government and person of the reigning Pontiff. I now afk, on the other hand, how many Catholic princes during the fpace of one hundred years after the Reformation, were deprived by their Proteftant fubjects of the whole of their dominions, or of such part of them as the latter could deprive them of! The prefent occafion does not permit me to enter into particulars, I fhall therefore fatisfy myfelf with referring to the hiftories of Germany, the Low Countries, Sweden, France, England, Scotland, Geneva, &c. during that period. But the circumftance which is chiefly deferving of notice is, that the revolutionary tranfactions here alluded to, were carried on not only "under the encouragement, fanction, and authority" of the very patriarchs and oracles of the new religion, but in moft inftances by their exprefs orders. Did not Luther iffue more bulls than one to abfolve the Germans from their obedience to Charles V, Did not Calvin and Beza require the Huguenots to rebel against their fovereigns? Did not Knox and the Prefbyterian clergy of Scotland in general with thundering anathemas impel their fol lowers to shake off the dominion of the queen regent, and afterwards that of the unfortunate Mary? What elfe were the fermons and writings of Cranmer,

Ridley, Jewel, Poynet, and other fathers of the new religion at home, in the reign of our queen Mary, but fo many decrees in favour of rebellion and fo many abfolutions from the duty of allegiance? Did not a new set of Proteftant doctors, proceeding however upon the fundamental principle of the former, viz. that of private judgment in the interpretation of fcripture and in all matters of religion, preach up, on the alleged authority of God's word, the justice and neceffity of depofing and murdering their king, the gallant Charles I. and fubverting the conftitution? Did not the fame doctors, on the fame pretended facred authority, abfolve the prisoners of war who were released to them at Brentford from the oaths they had severally taken of not serving again in the republican army? (1) Did not the most famous prelates and divines of the establishment, a few years before, pretend to abfolve the faid king from his fworn duty to his fubjects and the very law of nature, by deciding that he was at liberty to fend his trufty minifter, Strafford, to the scaffold, notwithstanding he himself was confcientiously perfuaded of his innocence. (2) But what most calls for confideration; is there not at the prefent time a numerous and, in many respects, a powerful sect of religionists lately established called Jerufalemites or Ezekielites, who, from mifinterpreting a certain paffage of the prophet Ezekiel, (3) fancy them

felves

(1) See Lord Clarendon's Hiftory of the Rebellion. (2) Williams, archbishop of York, Ufher, primate of Ireland, the bifhops Potter and Morton, both famous controverfial writers.

(3) See Ezech. xxi, 25, 26, 27.

felves called upon to deftroy every fpecies of monarchical government as far as it is in their power? I grant that in this, no lefs than in the preceding inftances, the fcriptures are abused and perverted; but how will Dr. S. prove this point to the Jerufalemites, when they are prepared to anfwer him, that they have the fame right of interpreting the fcriptures which he has and which all the prelates and divines in the world have!" I conclude then with confidence," to make ufe of my adverfary's words, that no danger whatfoever can arife to the state or to civil fociety from the principle which he fo ftrongly objects to Catholics, viz. that of the depofing power; 1ft, because it is not and never was confidered as an article of faith, but merely as a fcholaftic opinion; 2dly, because the Popes themfelves have, for many generations paft, ceased to act upon it or even to affert it; 3dly, because the Catholics themselves have rejected and abjured it upon their most folemn oaths.On the other hand I maintain, with equal confidence, that upon the fundamental principle of the Reformation, namely, the right of each individual to explain the fcripture for himself, no creed is fixed and no government is fecure. The church of England indeed has fet bounds to that right in her articles, homilies, &c. But of what advantage are these, if her own pastors and dignitaries preach and publish in direct oppofition to them?]

LETTER VII.

SIR,

IF you have been unable to make

good your charge of disloyalty against the English Catholics under the laft fovereign of the houfe of the Tudors, you will find still greater difficulty in proving them to have been disloyal to the different princes of the Stuart family. It is true, you will not want pretexts for accufing them; becaufe the heat of popular prejudice against them continuing rather to increase than diminish during the whole 17th century, a fucceffion of confpiracies and other crimes were continually imputed to them. Hence, whatever party prevailed, the penal laws went on increasing in number and feverity, and the general cry was kept up for a more rigorous execution of them. Juft fo we rend with refpect to the Pagan perfecutions, that under every foreign and domeftic misfortune, the people of Rome were accustomed to clamour for the Chriftians to be devoured by wild beafts. (1)

It must appear extraordinary to thofe who have not fearched into the causes of this fact, that the Catholic religion, amongst all others, fhould have been fo long the peculiar object of national prejudice and perfecution. The Calvinifts or Puritans, wher

(1) Chriftianos ad leonem." Tertul. Apolog.

ever