the religion itself. From this view of the subject it has been thought that the principles of popery, are so hostile to the very existence of a protestant state, as to preclude the union of protestants and Roman catholics in the same community. See a work entitled Hints on Toleration, by Philagatharches, where these arguments are powerfully urged.

But against all these and similar objections, it has been, and we think with great force, insisted, that there is no reason to suppose that the spirit of the Roman catholic religion is necessarily the same in all ages and countries. On the contrary, it is, in the nature of things, much more probable that it should vary under different circumstances of civil government, civilization, moral and intellectual improvement, and the diffusion of scriptural knowledge. Such changes have in point of fact really taken place; and, conceding to the adversary of emancipation, that the sentiments and proceedings of the Romanists of a former age were even such as has been represented, sufficient proof has surely been afforded, that the liberal and enlightened catholic of the present day does not hold such opinions, nor breathe such a spirit. Many of the most obnoxious tenets of popery have been officially disowned by their most celebrated public universities. And if all the dangerous and immoral principles attributed to popery should indeed be found in the creeds or councils of the Romish church, may they not, under the present state of things, be considered as speculative and abstract principles, unsusceptible of practical adoption; and thus, along with the metaphysical subtilties of the schoolmen, or many of the obsolete statutes of our own code, be consigned to an eternal slumber among the rust and lumber of the dark ages.

That Roman catholics may be safely admitted to offices of confidential trust, has already been the subject of actual experiment; of which the history of our own country will furnish abundant examples. In our own times also, we have seen them marching in the rauks of our armies, and conflicting side by side with our bravest heroes. In other countries,

too, in France, in the Netherlands, and in America, Roman catholics and protestants share together the same civil privileges, and with the most perfect security. Moreover, the disabling statutes in question, so far from forming, as some persons suppose, a fundamental part of our constitutional law, were but modern innovations, and mere expedients, devised and adopted to meet a passing exigency, existing in the peculiar circumstances of the times. But the state of things is now widely different; nor does it appear what application the measures then adopted can have to the times and circumstances of the present day. Were we even to suppose that dangerous principles still slumber in a state of abeyance in the bosom of the Romish church, and calculate on the mere possibility of occurrences taking place, which might give to such principles a renewed vigour, and direct them into hostile courses of action, it may be fairly questioned whether it would be politic or expedient in the mere contemplation of a remote, contingent, and, perhaps merely imaginary danger, to incur a present and imminent evil. May we not then, as christians and as protestants, be at length satisfied to rest the interests of truth on their own intrinsic merit, and not on the privilege of law or the patronage of the state; and may we not hope that the breaking up of those political barriers which have so long separated the protestant from the catholic, may, by removing prejudices, and inviting mutual confidence, promote a spirit of inquiry, and thus lead the way to the emancipation of the mind from the chains of spiritual slavery, the increase of religious knowledge, and the final triumph of genuine christianity? Our limits, of course, permit us in this place, barely to glance at some of the principal arguments on both sides of this interesting question. In order to form a more correct idea of their application, the reader is referred to the details contained in the following pages.

CHAPTER I.

HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THE LAWS IMPOSING CIVIL DISABILITIES ON THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

Penal Laws in the time of Elizabeth-Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity Corporation and Test Acts-Popish Plot-Exclusion of Catholic Peers from Parliament—Effect of the Revolution of 1688 -Toleration Act-Act of Settlement-Progress of the Principles of Religious Liberty-Laws respecting Irish Catholics.

Ir will not fall within the limits of our plan, to enter into any extended discussion as to the propriety or expediency of the laws affecting the civil rights of the catholics, at the time of their enactment. It will be sufficient to state, generally, the object which they had in view, and to refer particularly to the most important. It must be admitted that the state of society, and the circumstances of the times, at the period to which these laws refer, were such, as to require a strong provision for the security of the empire. In order to form some idea of their adaptation to this purpose, it may be necessary to glance at their origin, as far back as the reign of Elizabeth. On the broad principles of toleration, which we have endeavoured to lay down in our introductory chapter, the conduct of the queen will hardly escape severe reprehension. But when we consider how defective were the views which our ancestors took of this subject; if we recollect how intimately political events were then blended with religious considerations and feelings; and, especially, if we advert to the sufferings which the country had endured from the ascendency of the popish doctrines during the preceding reign;

B

we shall cease to wonder at the exercise of a power, the excessive severity of which we must nevertheless regret.

The accession of Elizabeth, it is needless to remark, was the occasion of peculiar joy among all the well-wishers to the Reformation; and strong measures, it was now supposed, would be adopted against the opposite party. The queen's conduct, however, allowing for the prejudices of the times, was, at the commencement of her reign, prudent and moderate. In her council were some individuals, distinguished alike by their talent, and their decided attachment to the protestant cause. By their influence it was, probably, that the supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs was restored to the crown, and that the bill for establishing the English liturgy, was passed.

66

com

"These two statutes," "* observes an able writer, monly denominated the acts of supremacy and uniformity,† form the basis of that restrictive code of laws, deemed by some one of the fundamental bulwarks, by others the reproach of our constitution, which pressed so heavily for more than two centuries upon the adherents to the Romish church. By the former, all beneficed ecclesiastics, and all laymen holding office under the crown, were obliged to take the oath of supremacy, renouncing the spiritual as well as temporal jurisdiction of every foreign prince or prelate, on pain of forfeiting their office or benefice; and it was rendered highly penal, and for the third offence treasonable, to maintain such supremacy by writing or advised speaking. The latter statute trenched more on the natural rights of conscience, prohibiting, under pain of forfeiting goods and chattels for the first offence, of a year's imprisonment for the sécond, and of imprisonment during life for the third, the use by a minister, whether beneficed or not, of any but the esta

* 1 Eliz. c. 1 and 2.

The act containing the oath of supremacy is now referred to 1 Geo. c. 2. and the act of uniformity to 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 4.

blished liturgy; and imposed a fine of one shilling on all who should absent themselves from church on Sundays and holidays."*

This act operated as an absolute interdiction of the catholic rites, however privately celebrated; though it is probable that the violation of this law by the domestic exercise of that religion during the first part of Elizabeth's reign was frequently connived at, especially, with respect to some persons of very high rank. But we find instances of severity towards catholics, even in that early period; and it is evident that their solemn rites were only performed by stealth, and at much hazard. This commencement of persecution induced many catholics to fly beyond sea, and gave rise to those reunions of disaffected exiles, which never ceased to endanger the throne of Elizabeth,

The act entitled, "for the assurance of the queen's royal power over all estates and subjects within her dominions,"+ enacts, with an iniquitous retrospect, that all persons, who had ever taken holy orders, or any degree in the universities, or had been admitted to the practice of the laws, or held any office in their execution, should be bound to take the oath of supremacy, when tendered to them by a bishop, or by commissioners appointed under the great seal. The penalty for the first refusal of this oath was that of a præmunire; but any person, who after the space of three months from the first tender should again refuse it, when in like manner tendered, incurred the pains of high treason. The oath of supremacy was imposed by this statute on every member of the house of commons, but could not be tendered to a peer.

In 1581, an act was passed, which, after repeating the former provisions that had made it high treason to reconcile any of her majesty's subjects, or to be reconciled, to the church of Rome, imposes a penalty of £20 a month on all persons absenting themselves from church, unless they shall

* Hallam's Constitutional History of England, vol. i.

p.

154.

† 5 Eliz. c. 1.