into the family of a protestant nobleman: the steward was perfectly satisfied with the account, which she gave of herself and the character which she produced; but, on hearing from her, that she was a catholic, told her "his master would never have any such cattle "in his house," and dismissed her.-Now, would this language have been used,-this idea entertained if catholics had been admissible, equally with protestants, into the situations, which have been mentioned? It is this equalization of state, that constitutes the general salutariness of the measure of emancipation: the more this equalization is broken into by exceptions, the less salutary the measure must be, and the less generally diffused must be the good, which it produces. Should such a limited measure be contemplated, the best method of effecting it, will be to abrogate altogether, the declarations in the acts of the 25 & 30 of Chas. II, and to substitute the oath of 1791 instead of the oath of supremacy, as a qualification to catholics, for all offices except those from which the exclusion of them is to be continued. That the declarations are highly objectionable appears to be generally admitted: it has been suggested, to be a reason for retaining them, that, in fact they are the only real guards which exclude catholics from the offices and situations in question, as the generality of them, it is alleged, would take the oath of supremacy and still deem themselves catholics. It is true that, as the language of the oath of supremacy is ambiguous, and as an oath is always to be taken in the sense of the propounder, some persons have thought that, if such a legislative interpretation of it should be given, as would impress upon it a construction conformable to catholic doctrine, the catholic church would cease to object to it. Upon this subject the writer has, in a former part of these memoirs stated his own impressions; he feels them confirmed by the recent parliamentary discussions of the catholic question. He still conceives that, notwithstanding the explanations given of the oath of supremacy in the admonition of queen Elizabeth, and the twenty-seventh of the thirty-nine articles, that oath was inconsistent with the doctrine of the catholic church, which teaches that "the pope is by divine right, spiritual "head of the church of Christ."-He thinks the present oath of supremacy still more objectionable; and that,without a legislative interpretation,—and an approbation of that interpretation by the proper spiritual authority,-it cannot be conscientiously taken by catholics.-This, he is confident, is the universal belief of all the members of his church; he therefore hopes, that if the measure of limited relief should ever be contemplated, the suspicion which he has noticed, will not prevent that measure's being effected by the repeal of the two declarations. The sacredness of an oath, which never should be taken, if the truth of what is sworn to "admits of any reasonable doubt +-good sense, which is shocked by the * Vol. i. p. 157. + An oath is one of the most solemn acts of religion, and no one should swear that a particular doctrine is maintained by any description of persons, or that a doctrine is erroneous, unless by a previous examination, or some other previous process, he has convinced himself both of the real existence of the doctrine, and of its error. Now, of the numbers, who, every year make this adjuring declaration, how few have used due diligence to ascertain the truth of what they affirm of the doctrines mentioned in the oath? How few have read the mass? How few have read the expositions given by the catholics themselves, of their doctrines respecting transubstantiation and the invocation of the saints? "BOSWELL. What do you think of the idolatry of the mass? "JOHNSON. Sir, there is no idolatry. They believe God to be "there and adore him. BoswELL. The invocation of the saints? language of the declarations,-the terms of amity now subsisting between the court of St. James and the Vatican, which renders the declarations an ungentlemanly state paper,-the littleness in wounding unnecessarily the feelings of that large proportion of the community which is catholic,-the injustice and impolicy of continuing any thing in existence which serves to keep prejudice against them alive, and the wisdom and expediency of every legislative or ministerial measure of graciousness and conciliation,-seem to point out the propriety of repealing altogether these senseless, offensive, and inofficious declarations. "JOHNSON. They do not worship the saints: they invoke them: "they only ask their prayers." The Life of Doctor Johnson by Mr. Boswell, vol. i. p. 561, 2nd Edit. Citations of passages, in which other eminent protestants, divines of the greatest authority, have made the same acknowledgments, might easily be multiplied.-How then (let the writer ask every reflecting protestant,)—can a person, who has not once thought seriously on the subject, conscientiously affirm, with the solemn asseveration of an oath, that transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, are what the statutes describe them? Does the legislature act conscientiously, or wisely, or prudently in requiring such an oath? END OF VOL. IV. Luke Hansard & Sons, near Lincoln's-Inn Fields. |