in regard to such as shall take the oath prescribed by the Act of Parliament for England, or the like oath proposed for Papists here, I shall only say that it would be extremely uncharitable to suppose them all perjured.

But as some things have been plausibly urged against the credibility of their oaths, it may be worth while to bestow on this point a little more attention. It is said, "The dispensing power of the Pope, his infallibility, the principle that no faith is to be kept with heretics, all serve to invalidate their promises and oaths, especially when given to those whom they regard as heretics." That the Popes have claimed such a dispensing power in loosing the obligation of the most solemn vows and contracts, and that many people have been blind enough to credit this most arrogant and impious claim, it would be to give the lie to all history, even the most authentic, to deny. Such also is the power they have claimed and exercised of deposing kings and emperors, and of loosing their subjects from their allegiance. Such also are their pretensions to infallibility, their corrupt maxims, subversive of faith, given to heretics, in all which they have been supported by hireling and prostitute writers among the clergy, friars, canonists and expectants of preferment in the church. But to say thus much is one thing, and to say that these points are received universally as doctrines of the church, is another. We ought to be just even to enemies.

In regard to the last of the above maxims, that faith is not to be kept to heretics, though it was never asserted, in so many words, by any council, it is unquestionable that the Council of Constance came so near giving it their sanction, in the decree they pronounced for the ease of the emperor's conscience, whom they had seduced to act a most perfidious part, as well as in the whole of their infamous proceedings with regard to Huss, that though it cannot be called an established principle of their religion, it has received that countenance from the spiritual powers among them, which furnishes but too good a handle for the clamours and jealousies of Protestants. And I will acknowledge, in passing, that as I could put no confidence, where religion is concerned, in the faith of a man who would vindicate a procedure so subversive of that security in engagements which is the most essential bond of society, so I can never consider that man as dangerous,

who, in this age and country, has the egregious folly to attempt the vindication. But in general, when recourse is had to experience, I am satisfied there is no ground to consider it as a maxim so prevalent in that party as to destroy all faith in their promises. If its prevalence were so great, what hindered them in England from taking the oath of supremacy, or the formula in Scotland? These would have secured them against many inconveniences to which their religion exposed them. And if there be some instances of their swearing falsely, from the temptation of interest, can we say that perjury is absolutely unexampled amongst ourselves? It is well known that in England, Papists had it in their power to relieve themselves, by means of certain oaths, before the passing of the late Act. But those oaths were different from that now enacted. Now a man who thinks he may take oaths and be under no obligation, or who thinks he has it in his power to obtain a dispensation from that obligation, has no reason to make any distinction between one oath and another. The dispensing power serves equally for all. Now that those in England who, on no consideration, could be induced to take the oaths formerly required, do not hesitate to take that required by the late Act, is evidence sufficient to a reasonable person, that they consider this as what they may, with a good conscience, take, but not the former.

"But how is it possible," some will object, "that they can conscientiously abjure so many high prerogatives of the sovereign pontiff, the successor of Saint Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ? Such are his dispensing power, his supremacy in temporals, and his infallibility; since it is unquestionable that these prerogatives he has both claimed and pretended to exercise?" To this I can only answer, that it is a known fact, that Roman Catholics themselves are not unanimous in regard to the justice of those claims. For example, it is a tenet universally held by them, that the church is infallible. But in the explanation of this tenet they differ exceedingly, as well as in the directions they give where we ought to seek for her unerring oracles. Some send us to the pope, with whom alone, according to them, this amazing privilege is lodged; some to the pope and ecumenical council acting in conjunction; some to the council, though without the pope; some to the church universal, that is, to whatever

opinions universally obtain in those they term Catholic

countries.

So notorious it is, that even among Papists there are that are more, and there are that are less, papistical. Accordingly, some even of their writers denominate those Pontificii Papists, by way of distinction, who defend all the exorbitant claims of the papacy. Nay, so certain it is that the Romanists themselves are greatly divided on this head, that the famous Council of Constance above referred to, as well as the Council of Pisa that preceded it, asserted its own superiority above the Pope in the most express terms, and indeed acted in an entire conformity to this doctrine. It is not just, therefore, (for our religion does not permit us to speak deceitfully even for God,) to talk of the Pope's infallibility, dispensing power in respect of oaths, and the lawfulness of perfidy to heretics, as doctrines universally received in the Church of Rome. These and several such absurdities will be found, from a proper attention to ecclesiastic history, to have ebbed and flowed, in that Church, with knowledge and ignorance. In proportion as knowledge increased, those opinions lost credit; as ignorance increased, they gained credit. Whatever influence authority may have on weak minds, in making speculative dogmas, however nonsensical, be received with veneration, there is a principle in human nature, which, till the mind is wholly immersed in superstition and darkness, will effectually prevent such moral absurdities from being generally assented to. Nay, a principle of honour, as well as a sense of right, go far to check the progress of those disgraceful maxims.

I shall only add to the above remarks, that even in regard to those whose conformity to the civil establishment may not be so cordial as could be wished (for that there may be some such instances who can deny?), it will still have this good effect, viewed in a political light, that it will be a check both on their actions and on their conversation. Principles openly and solemnly abjured, it may be supposed that men, especially those of a sacred character, will, for their own sakes, not be forward to avow, and still less to inculcate. There is therefore here a real accession of strength to the civil establishment, without the smallest prejudice, that I can perceive, to the Protestant interest.

But the incompetency even of the British Parliament

"The

for making such a change in the laws wherein religion is concerned, has been boldly asserted. The establishment of the present Presbyterian Church of Scotland was declared, January 1707, a fundamental article of the union of the two kingdoms, not to be altered afterwards even by the joint legislature of both. In the Act declaring this, there is a clause perpetually confirming the fifth Act, Parl. 1690, which was the Act establishing Presbytery and ratifying the Confession of Faith. In this there is a general ratification of all former Acts made against Popery. But the Acts now proposed to be in part repealed, could never be comprehended in that clause, because they were not former but posterior Acts. The writers of the Short View* argue in a way entirely their own. Acts," say they, "directly relating to this one, and consequently ratified with it, and unalterably established, are chiefly three: Act 2nd, Parl. 1700; Act 3rd, 1702; Act 2nd, 1703." Now that these Acts are related to Act 5th, 1690, as they all relate to religion, nobody will dispute; but that they were ratified by an Act ten or twelve years before they were made, these gentlemen have the whole honour of discovering. Let it be observed that these Acts, though posterior to the Act 1690, were prior to the Act 1707. Yet this Act, for the security of religion at the union, passes over those more recent Acts in relation to Popery, and only declares perpetual an Act made so many years before them, thereby plainly leaving the intermediate Acts to the wisdom of the British Legislature, to confirm, repeal or alter at any time, as they should find expedient; and only giving perpetuity to the Act that first, after the Revolution, established the Presbyterian form of government and ratified the Confession of Faith. This argument (shall I call it?), by which these writers say, modestly, their "averment is surely proved to a demonstration," I have been the more particular in exposing, because, in a certain event, it is capable of being made a very bad use of among the people.

But, whatever be in the competency of Parliament, must not the proposed repeal be highly prejudicial to the Protestant interest?" say those who consider themselves as the patrons and friends of that interest. Will it not throw down all our fences, open the door to Jesuits,

* Rem. i.

66

seminary priests, &c., and give liberty to the open profession and exercise of Romish idolatries, as well as give full scope to their vile artifices for the perversion of our youth?" All this appears specious to those who do not reflect, and consider things severally and attentively. First, they may profess their religion openly and safely. Be it so. I cannot see how that circumstance alone can attribute to their increase. The Quakers (a most harmless race) have long enjoyed that privilege; yet it does not appear that they have been increasing. I think the contrary has been the fact. But if one were to devise a method for giving consequence to those of that way, and producing a change favourable to their increase, he could not devise a better than to get all those laws against Papists enacted against Quakers, especially if, by high premiums, wretches were bribed to turn informers, and contribute to the execution of the laws.

The bulk of mankind are more influenced by their passions, in forming their opinions, than by reason. Render people objects of our compassion, bring us once heartily to sympathize with them as with persons oppressed, not for any crime, but for what they cannot remedy, their opinions, and ye have gone a great deal to make us turn proselytes, and go over to those whom we cannot help pitying as persons suffering under the greatest cruelty and injustice. If the sufferers should display some patience and fortitude, they will need no stronger arguments to persuade spectators more remarkable for sensibility of heart than acuteness of understanding, that they must have truth upon their side. They will reverence them as saints. Wo to that nation, whose laws every sensible and honest heart must be convinced there is greater virtue in disobeying than in obeying! This is the case with persecuting laws, though the persecutors should have truth upon their side. If men, through fear of the punishments ye enact, belie their conscience, and in so doing sin against God, abjure what they believe, and profess what they think damnable errors, ye compel them to destroy their peace of mind, make shipwreck of faith and of a good conscience. They sin heinously; "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And ye legislators and judges, authors, promoters and executors of such iniquitous laws, ye who ought to be the terror of evil-doers and the praise of them that do well, ye are their tempters, seducers and corruptors. The generality of men have a feeling of this, though they