Kome, and efpecially by a certain fraternity for whom this oath is alfo intended. Now, where there is any reafon to cr " suspect "its fubjects of their civil rights, in punishment of any crime they may com "mit? and, in fuch cafes, are not those who owed them any duty, in confe quence of such rights, freed from the obligation of paying that duty? and, if "they refuse to pay, where it is no longer due, will you say that fuch refufal " is a breach of faith ?"-Concerning the decree of Gregory VII. (ee before p. 82.) abfolving all from their oath of fidelity to excommunicated perfons, and prohibiting them to keep faith with them, till they make fatisfaction, he says; "This punishment is no other than what is a neceffary confequence of the state "they are in; for as the law of God obliges us to fly from the company of excommunicated perfons, and to have no communication with them, and "not even to eat with them, it follows of neceffity, that, while they are in "that ftate, all right or title they have to the service of others under their authority must be fufpended; for if their right continues in force, and, confe "quently, if those under their authority be obliged to ferve them, it is plain, "they can neither avoid them, nor fhun communication with them. Now, "whether the law declares the guilty perfon to be deprived of his right, or those "who are under his authority to be freed from their obedience to him, is it not one and the self-fame thing?-If the law of God commands us to avoid the company of an excommunicated perfon, it, of neceffity, fufpends all obliga "tion of fidelity to him. In a word, it is felf-evident, that if the fupreme "authority, whether in church or ftate, has power to deprive any of its fubjects of any of their civil rights, or to suspend them in punishment of any "crime committed by them, when fuch forfeiture is actually incurred, there can be neither breach of faith nor injuftice in thofe who refuse to give them "that service to which thefe forfeited rights formerly entitled them, but to "which they have now no more claim."-" When the council (of Conftance) " condemned him (Huss) to be degraded and delivered over to the civil power, " and when the civil power, in confequence of his being found guilty, punished him with death, as the law ordained, neither the one nor the other could "poffibly be guilty, even in the fmallest degree, of a breach of any faith pledged "to Hufs by the emperor's fafe conduct.”—“ From all this, the common "fense of mankind will neceffarily conclude, that the council was fo far from. "violating the fafe conduct, or breaking faith to Hufs, by taking him into "cuftody, that it did nothing but what juftice, reaf n, and duty, required to "be done.". "" Upon what grounds then do you call his being kept in cuftody " an atrocious violation of the poor man's liberty?" -"The fafe conduct grant"ed to Hufs was neither fought nor given for any other end but to protect him "from all injuries by the way, and from injuftice at Conflance, and in both "these refpects it was perfectly implemented.”— --"The civil powers in all "Chriftian nations have communicated a confiderable fhare of their temporal' "jurifdiction to the clergy, with regard to those of their own body the bishops e: are empowered to hold courts of justice, with regard to their own clergy, not Hh 2 cr only 1 fufpect perfons of fuch principles, no form of words or gaths can ever be devifed fufficient to afcertain their fincerity. And though the oath be fenced with a folemn claufe against equivocation and mental reservation, yet, in this cafe, it must be utterly unavailing: nay, a claufe of this fort, framed for fuch perfons, muft rather, in the nature only in fpiritual caufes, but also in civil, and even in criminal caufes also, "and to inflict fuch corporal punishments on the delinquents as they shall fee proper, whether by fines or imprisonments; and this privilege was so strongly, "fecured to the paftors of the church by the civil laws, that it was exprefsly prohibited to fue a clergyman before a fecular judge, for any crime whatsoever, under the pain of lofing the fuit immediately."—"The council does not find fault with fafe conducts, given to preferve the accufed from injury, or injustice, but only with fuch as are of prejudice to the Catholic faith, and "to the ecclefiaftical jurifdiation the council was convinced, and all Roman "Catholics believe, that no human power can give a safe conduct of this kind, "because it would be contrary to the laws of God, and to that facred authority. "with which Jefus Chrift has vefted his church. The spiritual jurisdiction "of the church is believed by Roman Catholics to be truly divine and indefea"fible-whatever degree of temporal jurifdiction the church poffeffes, she has indeed received it from the ftate; but her title to it is founded upon the "ftrongest charters the ftate could give, and confirmed again and again by re"peated laws and conftitutions of kings and emperors: confequently, no one 66 can violate even that jurifdiction without the most manifeft injuftice. If, "therefore, a fafe conduct should be given in prejudice of the ecclefiaftical ju rifdiction, whether fpiritual or temporal, it is unjust and unlawful in itself, "contrary to the laws of God and man, and, confequently, is in its own nature "void and null; and the person who gave it exceeded his commiffion, and did what he had no power to do.-Is therefore the perfon who gives fuch a fafe " conduct obliged to keep his promise? How can he be obliged to keep a promife which is out of his power? No man can be bound by an impoffibility, "c or to do a thing which the laws of God and man forbid. Now this is precifely what the council teaches in this canon; (fee before p. 120.); for as it "is certainly unlawful to give a promife, by which either the true faith of "Jesus Christ, or the lawful jurisdiction of any power, is violated, whoever "gives fuch a promise is not obliged to perform it, though he had confirmed “his promise by an oath."-Hence it evidently appears, that this very canon "decrees nothing but what is just and right, conformable to the light of reafon " and common fenfe, &c." -Accipe nunc Danaum infidias, et crimine ab uno...... Philips's Life of Cardinal Poole, paffim. G. H.'s Anfwer, &c. p. 34, 37, 38, of of the thing, be a glaring abfurdity. He that can equivocate in one thing, can equivocate in all; and may, with equal facility, pervert the meaning, and elude the force of words condemning equivocation, as any others whatever. This is the perfection of the art; and nothing can be proof against it. By this Jefuitical hocus-pocus and legerde-main all use of language is confounded and lost, and all fenfe of words vanishes into air.-There are fome first principles in which mankind must be fuppofed to be agreed, before they can be fit for focial connections: and this of the neceffity of truth and fincerity, and the evil of equivocation, is certainly one of them. Unless this be previously and abfolutely out of doubt, all compacts, promises and oaths must be useless, and no better than the bafelefs fabric of a vifion. If any are found calling it into question, they ought to be confidered as the avowed fubverters of human fociety; and instead of offering them an opportunity, or inviting them to play with folemn oaths, they deserve to be whipt and banished out of every commonwealth, and fent to herd with brutes, or affociate with atheists, if a society of fuch could poffibly fubfift on the face of the earth. We need not therefore doubt but that the body of Papifts will get themfelves, one way or other, reconciled to take this new teft; and multitudes of them we are affured have already done it: nor is it unlike to their practice on former occafions. But the qualifying oaths of fome are more to be dreaded than their execrations; and their conformity may prove more dangerous to the ftate than their recufancy; as an open enemy is lefs to be feared than a treacherous friend. State oaths of all kinds have usually been admitted without much difficulty, when any privilege or emolument has been depending upon them. For that very reafon fhould their influence be diftrufted, and the confcientious performance of them fufpected. In thefe cafes, he who fweareth is often lefs to be depended upon than than he who religiously feareth an oath. When the known principles of perfons or focieties abundantly teftify their allegiance and loyalty, and when the general tenor of their behavour, and a feries of dutiful actions uniformly proclaim it, this is a far better fecurity to any government than a thousand fuch oaths. But fuch eafy conformists have scarce perhaps finifhed the ceremony, when their engagements are forgot; or they learn to explain or sport away their obligation, by fuch wretched quibbling as that of Hudibras: We have already had more than enough of this kind of fwearing; and there is little need to make further additions to the public guilt. Britain has long been peftered by a fet of fuch qualified rebels, who have scorned to strain at fuch gnats as oaths of allegiance or abjuration. Ever fince the unhappy, unhallowed time, when the public faith was most daringly and profanely violated, and the confciences of the people debauched by authority, in the matter of a most important and memorable oath, and folemn league for the reformation of three kingdoms, the most important, the most memorable, the most folemn, that any government ever established, or any people ever entered into, public oaths, however changed and multiplied, have *Referring to the impious acts and proceedings of the government in England and Scotland with respect to the Solemn League and Covenant, fo noted in the Biti hiftory. After this had been publicly approven and injoined, religiouffy fworn, ratified and confirmed by repeated acts of the legislature in both kingdoms, and in one of them made a fundamental law in the constitution, and declared to be ever after irrevocable, even as the matter of the oath and the terms in which it was expreffed neceffarily rendered it perpetually obligatory and unalterable; yet, after the unhappy Reftoration, this was not only practically vio lated, have been little elfe than paftime. Perjury has been emi nently Britain's fin, and has alfo become peculiarly her plague and punishment. From lated, and ignominiously burnt in the principal cities of Britain, but also, by authority, again condemned, refeinded, and prohibited: all perfons were declared to be free from any obligation from it, and, by new tests and oaths, obliged to renounce and abjure it :-all fubjects were discharged, under the highest pains, from acknowledging its obligation, or attempting to fulfil the contracted engagements, though they were not principally and immediately made with men, but with the fupreme Jehovah. This was a fcene of perfidy and facrilegious wickednefs yet unparalleled in the hiftory of Chriftian or even Pagan nations. It may compare with the utmost stretches of Papal prerogative, and furpaffes the highest acts of that blafphemous difpenfing power arrogated by him who fits in the temple of God, fhewing himself to be God. It exceeds, all things confidered, the most glaring inftances of Popish perfidy on record; as the perfecution that followed equalled if not exceeded, in unrelenting cruelty, any thing of that kind perpetrated by Popish tyrants. We need not fearch the Bullaria of Rome, or the canons of councils, for difpenfations with folemn oaths, and precedents or warrants for perjury, when they may be found in fo many of the royal edicts and legislative acts, some of them yet unrepealed, of a Proteftant kingdom. The damnable principle of breaking faith, generally imputed to Papiffs, and juftly accounted fo odious in them, has been (tell it not in Gath!) adopted and practifed by Proteftants; and the horrid doctrine more directly avowed and exprefsly established by the juridical decifions of English and Scottish parliaments, than ever perhaps by any Pope or Catholic council, or any of the cafuistical writings of the difciples of Loyola. They allow, in fome cafes, the violation of faith with heretics; but profefed Proteftants have made it lawful not only to break faith with one another, but with the God of truth, and the avenger of perfidy, to whom vows are to be performed. They plead for the non-performance of engagements and promises when made against Christ, but thefe difown the obligation of the most facred ties binding men to promote the laws, the intereft, and kingdom of Chrift. They only declare thofe oaths and covenants to be null and void, which are contrary to the Catholic faith and religion; but these have not scrupled to rescind and annul fuch as were exprefsly framed for maintaining the whole religious system of Proteftants, and for promoting a happy union and uniformity therein, and a progreflive reformation, according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches. Papifts have authorized and commanded men to break their caths when they were bonds of iniquity; but the laws of Britain have warranted and commanded, nay, threa tened and compelled men, under the pains of treafon, to condemn and abjure eaths and covenants exprefsly renouncing all errors, fuperftition, tyranny, impiety, and profane nefs, wherein all the fwearers declare their unfeigned pur"pose, defire and endeavour to perform all duties which they owed to God and 66 man, to amend their lives, and each one to go before another in the example "of |