them, how far does it affect the Catholics of Ireland, or the Catholics all over the world? When the Elector of Saxony proposed a case of conscience to Luther and Melancthon to know whether in the absence of his wife or during her pregnancy he would make use of another? Those Casuists answered in the affirmative. A case of conscience much similar was proposed to Bishop Burnet. After labouring much, and torturing texts of Scripture, the humane Divine decided that polygamy was lawful. Would it not be ridiculous in me to force into the Lord Bishop of Cloyne's conscience, such decisions as articles of creed? Nay, some Protestant Divines went further. Doctor Dopping, Bishop of Meath, preached publicly in Christ church, Dublin, that violation of faith with Catholics was lawful, in justification of the breach of the articles of Limerick. To several Christian Divines then can be applied, what Cicero said of the philosophers of his time, that there was no absurdity so glaring, but had some philosopher to support it. If then the Lord Bishop of Cloyne intends to swell the Catholic creed, with the opinions of Catholic Schoolmen, I shall repay him tenfold, by sending to him a collection of absurdities and strange doctrines advanced by Protestant authors. Every man of sense will acknowledge this a sufficient answer to his Lordship's remark on Ghilini's letter. And what is Ghilini's opinion to countervail the doctrine sworn to by the Prelates and Catholics of Ireland, both clergy and laity? Or does the Lord Bishop of Cloyne intend to hold us up to our King and Country, as unprincipled perjurers? This is severe usage to men, labouring under so many disqualifications, because they refuse to take an oath against the conviction of their consciences. Let the most profligate amongst us swear against our whole creed, he is believed, and becomes an adoptive child of the state. When we swear against imputed doctrines without fee or reward, it is hard indeed if we deserve no credit. But without being an apologist for Ghilini, much less for Burke, has the Lord Bishop of Cloyne fairly stated the case, and the principles on which the titular Archbishop of Rhodes rejected the oath, which in reality he did not, nor could understand as well as the Catholics of Ireland? Did he say, or could he

have the absurd effrontery to say that Catholics could not in conscience swear allegiance to a Protestant King, when in the purest ages of the Christian Religion, the primitive Christians swore allegiance to the Heathen Cæsars? When the rigid Tertullian, a stranger to fear or flattery, who would expire in the tortures of the rack for his belief, has left us an abridgment of the prayer offered up by Christian subjects for their Pagan rulers. 'We pray, says this great 'man, We pray for the Emperors, and that God may grant 'them a long life and a quiet reign: that their family may 'be safe, and their forces valiant: their senate wise, their 'people orderly and virtuous: that they may rule in peace, and enjoy all the blessings they can desire either as men or princes. Et omnia quæ tendunt ad Cæsar's ' votum.'*

Upon what ground does Ghilini reject the oath? from ignorance. It is evident from his letter that he did not know the nature of it. His very words prove it to demonstration. I shall give them in the Lord Bishop of Cloyne's own translation.

Extract from Ghilini's letter.

'Besides, whether he be inviolably bound as the new form prescribes, to be always true and faithful to his Majesty, 'which is afterwards explained to affirm upon oath according *to the sense intended by the laws of Ireland, is to me a very 'dubious point.' [Remark here, Irish reader, how Ghilini doubts.] For since the laws of England and Ireland re'cognise the King as head of the Church, and the foun'tain of its spiritual authority, he who takes such an oath and promises to be faithful to his Majesty, according to the prescription of the laws of Ireland, might also recog nize the King as head of the Church, and the fountain of its spiritual authority. Should it happen that such expres. ⚫sions either were or could be so understood, your most 'illustrious Lordships and each of the Catholics themselves, 'ought to take notice that this is a most manifest error, and directly contrary to the principles of the Catholic.

Tertullian's Apology.
૧ ૨

'religion, which acknowledges only one head and fountain ' of all spiritual authority, namely, the Roman Pontiff.'

From these very words the reader may know that the Nuncio did not know the nature of the oath. He confounds civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and imagines that the Irish legislature proposed an oath of allegiance to the Catholics, binding them to acknowledge the King as Pope, head of the universal Church, and the fountain of all spiritual authority; whereas they only swore that no foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any civil jurisdiction within these realms. Hence the doubts and ignorance of an Italian casuist, are trumpeted over three kingdoms, as articles of Catholic belief, and waved as so many signals for perse-. cution.

Nor does the Lord Bishop of Cloyne discriminate the clauses of the oath from each other; nor explain the distinctions of which Ghilini's letter is susceptible, with that accuracy to which he should have attended if he expected

an answer.

.

In the same period of the oath, there are two clauses, the one disclaiming violation of faith with heretics, as an arti'cle of Catholic belief:' the other disclaiming the depo⚫sition of Kings, in consequence of Papal excommunications.' The Legate gives his opinion, that the condemnation of the latter as abominable is absolutely intolerable, because, according to him, this doctrine (Hanc Doctrinam) has been defended and contended for by most Catholic nations, and the Holy See has frequently followed it in practice.

It is to be remarked, that he speaks in the singular number, (doctrinam hanc,) and alludes to the indirect deposing power, supported by some ultramontane Canonists, whom the Legate in consequence of his prejudices in favour of the court of Rome, enlarges into most Catholic nations. For violation of faith with heretics was never defended nor contended for by Catholic nations, much less by the Apostolic See. But it has been detested and exclaimed against, as a black slander, invented by indelicate controvertists, in order to misrepresent the Catholic doctrine, and to bring an odium on the Apostolic See. This the Lord Bishop of Cloyne should know.

If he had no authority but that of Doctor Hayes, who proved it a slander five or six years ago in Scotland; or of Mr. O'Leary, who exclaimed against it as a slander about the same time in Ireland, and who proclaims it a slander still; the Lord Bishop of Cloyne might plead the pliant policy of men, who, under the terror of prosecution, were obliged to soften their doctrine. But when he reads Natalis Alexander, a Dominican friar, in his dissertations on Ecclesiastical History; Arnaldus, in his apology, and so many Catholic divines writing in Catholic countries, against violation of faith with heretics, and making it out downright slander; the Lord Bishop of Cloyne might have spared himself the trouble of translating Ghilini's letter: that Legate then must allude to the indirect deposing power exploded all over the world, though supported by some Italian Canonists, and unsuccessfully attempted by some Popes, not in consequence of any divine right, but in consequence of a temporal claim, founded either on compacts or a long prescription pleaded against monarchs, whose predecessors had rendered their kingdoms tributary to the Holy See.

If the Protestant Bishop of Cloyne, who is so ardent for the security of his tithes, (the occasion of so many disturbances in this kingdom,) had the same title to Peter's-pence, and been as powerful as the Roman Pontiffs were at the beginning of the reformation, he would have been as clamorous as Pope Paul the Fourth, and Sixtus Quintus, who considered England as a fief of the Holy See.* For the generality of church-men, however divided as to creeds, agree very well in one point, viz. not to part with what they have. Hence they are called Mortmain in law form, perhaps from the gripe of a dead man's hand. The best manner of living on good terms with them, is to give them all, and take nothing from them but such is not the present humour of Catholic Monarchs, who, without any breach of the Catholic doctrine, and in defiance of the thunders of the Vatican, lay siege to the Pope's cities, if he gives them any provocation. In vain would he fulminate his excommunications on the score of

*This was the answer of Pope Paul the Fourth, to Queen Elizabeth's Ambassadors.

temporalities. They are considered as a fulmen brutem. The Lord Bishop of Cloyne then either misunderstands Ghilini's letter, or tortures it as he tortured Mr. O'Leary's writings. I would stake my life this very instant, that if the Lord Bishop of Cloyne wrote to the Nuncio, and asked him if he meant in his letter that violation of faith with heretics, was a doctrine defended, contended for by most Catholic nations, and frequently followed in practice by the Holy See; I would stake my life that the Nuncio would write to the Lord Bishop of Cloyne a very obliging letter, in which he would disclaim any such meaning, equally with the doctrine. The Nuncio mentions in his letter, doctrinam, doctrine. The Lord Bishop of Cloyne changes doctrine into doctrines, the plural number, in the following manner, page twenty-two of his pamphlet.

But

The Legate treats the clauses in the proposed oath, containing a declaration of abhorrence and detestation of 'the doctrines, that faith is not to be kept with heretics; and that princes deprived by the Pope may be deposed, as ab'solutely intolerable, because those doctrines are defended • and contended for by most Catholic nations.' Had the Legate expressed himself in the same identical words with the Lord Bishop of Cloyne, there would be no need of any comment. We would condemn the Legate's ignorance, and the horror of his doctrine in a more pointed manner. here it is a Roman courtier, who is so zealous for the honour of his ultramontane Canonists, who supported the discarded deposing power, and takes offence that their doctrine should be called abominable; and for this reason says, that such a stricture is intolerable. The Lord Bishop of Cloyne, from brotherly love, increases the ecclesiastical funds, by adding to the Archbishop of Rhodes's doctrine of the indirect deposing power, violation of faith with heretics, of which the other certainly could not think. Thus one Prelate shews an extraordinary generosity in bestowing on his Confrere more than he would accept of. Nothing more then can be inferred from this letter, than that the Titular Archbishop of Rhodes doubts the validity of an oath, of the nature of which he expresses his ignorance, in imagining that the Catholics of Ireland intended to make a Pope