my heart, that pernicious and abominable doctrine, that no faith or pro mise, is to be kept with Heretics, or Princes excommunicated," &c.

In allusion to this, the Nunció remarks:

"It ought to be known to [a prelate of] your erudition, that this doctrine which is asserted to be detestable in this Oath, the same is defended and contended for by most Catholic nations, and has been repeatedly followed in practice by the Holy See," &c. and near the conclusion of his long letter he officially censures the Oath in its whole extent as unlawful, and in its nature, void and null and invalid; so that it can by no means bind and oblige the consciences [of Orthodox Catholics]."

Here we see, that the Nuncio Ghilini has truly and fairly stated the doctrine of the See of Rome, in several instances confirming the decisions of the General Councils of Constance, Sienna, and Trent, in an official, confidential Letter, never meant to have been divulged to the profane. The doctrine itself therefore, is most unquestionable."-Letters to Doctor Troy, pp. 115-117.

In consequence of the Nuncio's interposition, the Oath of Allegiance then proposed to have been brought before the Irish parliament, failed. It was afterwards revived and enacted in 1774, when it was patronized by the loyal Doctor Butler, titular Archbishop of Cashel, and his suffragan Bishops of Munster in the following Declaration :

"July 15, 1775.

"We, the Chiefs of the Roman Catholic Clergy, of the province of Munster, having met together near Cork, have unanimously agreed that the Oath of Allegiance, proposed by Act of Parliament, anno 13 et 14 Geo. III. regis, contains nothing contrary to the principles of the Roman Catholic Religion."

"A report," says Doctor Butler, in his Justification, was quickly circulated that the Roman Catholic Bishops of Munster were" all excommunicated by his Holiness for countenancing such an impiety;" ---that "a report had certainly reached Rome, that the Irish Catholic Clergy, by the Oath of Allegiance, had shaken off the Pope's Supremacy in Spirituals-and though he wrote a long memorial soon after, in September, 1773, to Cardinal Castelli, President of the Congregation de propaganda fide, stating the grounds upon which the Munster Prelates had proceeded; and demanding to know explicitly what objection they had; the Cardinal postponed answering his memorial, until 14 months after, and then sent him the following laconic censure.

Lord Dunboyne, and Doctors Egane, M'Kennor and Moylan.

"Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord and B other;

"Your duty and customary obsequiousness towards this Holy See, seemed absolutely to require that, in a matter of so great moment, ye should have judged that nothing ought to be determined without having previously consulted the Supreme Pontiff; whose judgment might also have been awaited by you the more easily, because ye were not constrained by any compulsion or by any law to produce such a Formulary. This it is which has affected our most Holy Lord and the Congregation with no slight uneasiness.-But I pray God that he may very long preserve your Lordship.J. M. Cardinal Castelli."

"To his Lordship James, Archbishop of Cashel,"

This decides the point, that a Formulary, or Oath of Allegiance denying the Pope's supremacy in temporals, and disclaiming those tenets imputed to the Romish Religion, was deemed reprehensible at Rome. The See of Rome, indeed, has uniformly opposed and obstructed every attempt to promote the allegiance of the Roman Catholics, from the days of Henry VIII. and will ever continue, so long as it possesses the means; so long as they acknowledge a foreign and hostile power paramount to that of the country; so long as the Romish Hierarchy and Clergy are liege subjects of the Pope, bound by oaths of fidelity * to him, at their ordination as priests, and consecration as bishops, utterly incompatible with their allegiance to the Crown; and so long as the Pope of Rome is suffered to retain, under a Protestant government (by a glaring political solecism), a great ecclesiastical patronage, independent of the Crown, and necessarily involving a considerable temporal jurisdiction: and this too, at a time, when the patronage of ecclesiastical benefices has been reclaimed and recovered from the Pope, by every Roman Catholic country in Europe; and very lately in France, formally rescinded by the new ecclesiastical regimen in that country.

Fas est et ab hoste doceri.

Letters to Doctor Troy, p. 19, 20.

III. Hence, we may easily account for the, otherwise strange, tergiversation of Doctor Milner, the accredited plenipotentiary of the Romish Hierarchy in Ireland, and for their formal refusal at a Convention held in Dublin, Feb. 24, 1810, to grant to the crown that Veto, on the nomination of ecclesiastics to bishoprics, which they had before empowered the same Doctor Milner to concede, on their parts, to their advocates in

See Extracts from these Oaths of the Romish prelates and priests, at their respective consecrations and ordinations, in Hales's Letters to Doctor Troy,-Pp. 27, 29.

Parliament, Lord Grenville and Mr. Ponsonby, who, at that time, were not a little embarrassed and perplexed by their duplicity.

Papal influence on this, as on former occasions, we may be well assured, notwithstanding the low estate. of the Papacy, decided the Romish Hierarchy to a measure so disgraceful to themselves, and so unpopular and obnoxious to the most respectable of the Irish nobility and gentry, and to the leading Roman Catholic merchants in the city of Dublin; who, for some time before, had threatened to take the nomination of the titular bishops, in future, from both Pope and Clergy, and to vest it in the People (to whom, as they asserted, it originally belonged), unless the titular bishops consented to grant a Veto to the Crown.

But what was the answer of the Hierarchy to their remonstrances ? Confident of their PREDOMINANT INFLUENCE over the Laity of their Communion, they said: Take the nomination of the Bishops from the Pope, take it from the Clergy; lodge it, if you please, in the hands of the Laity; we shall soon have it back again in His hands, from whom you wrested it."-Nor were they mistaken: the Laity implicitly submitted to spiritual authority, as they had done before, in England; and now, their Aggregate Meetings and Committees, are not less strenuous for denying the Veto to the Crown, than the Hierarchy themselves.

These curious, authentic, and interesting facts are submitted to the community at large, both Protestant and Romish; they are drawn forth from the shade, calmly and dispassionately, for the benefit of both, to undeceive and enlighten the public mind, and to induce the legislature not hastily, nor heedlessly, to surrender to ignorance and faction, the bulwarks of the constitution in Church and State.

INSPECTOR.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE MOB, A DOGMA OF POPERY. To the Editor of the Protestant Advocate.

SIR;-In my last Letter (signed J. D. p. 160), I told you that perhaps I might take an opportunity of shewing your readers THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE IS A DOGMA OF POPERY. I think it of importance to establish this point, by way of illustrating the proposition which I advanced, that the Friends of the Romanists are merely the Pioneers of the JACOBINS.

"Since the time that sch-divinity began to flourish (says my author) there hath been a common opinion maintained, as well by divines as by divers other learned men, which affirms-that-mankind is naturally endowed and boin with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please --and that the power which

any one man hath over others, was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude.-This tenet was first hatched in the schools and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity..... Upon the ground of this doctrine, both the Jesuits and some zealous favourers of the Geneva discipline, have built a perilous conclusion, which is, that the people or multitude, have power to punish or deprive the Prince, if he transgress the laws of the kingdom; witness Parsons and Buchanan; the first, [a Jesuit] under the name of Dolman, in the third Chap. of his first Book, labours to prove that Kings have been lawfully chastised by their commonwealths; the latter, in his book de jure regni apud Scotos, maintains a liberty of the people to depose their Prince. Cardinal Bellarmine and Calvin, both look asquint this way......... I will lay down some passages of Cardinal Bellarmine.-"Secular or civil power (saith he), is instituted by men; it is in the power of the people, unless they bestow it on a Prince. This power is immediately in the whole multitude, as in the subject of it; for this power is in the divine law, but the divine law hath given this power to no particular man.-If the positive law be taken away, there. is left no reason why, amongst a multitude (who are equal), one, rather than another, should bear rule over the rest........ It depends upon the consent of the multitude to ordain over themselves a King, a Consul, or other magistrate; and, if there be a lawful cause, the multitude may change the kingdom into an aristocracy or democracy. Thus far Bellarmine......... Late writers have taken up too much upon trust from the subtle schoolmen : who To BE SURE TO THRUST DOWN THE KING BELOW THE POPE, THOUGHT IT THE SAFEST COURSE ΤΟ ADVANCE THE PEOPLE ABOVE THE

KING; REGAL. Thus many an ignorant subject hath been fooled into this faith, that a man may become a martyr for his country, by being a traitor to his Prince; whereas the new-coined distinction of subjects into Royalists and Patriots, is most unnatural; since the relation between King and People is so great, that their well-being is reciprocal."-These passsages I have quoted out of that curious book, called, "Patriarcha, or the natural Power of Kings ;" (the author of which is known to many by name, though few, at the present day, read his treatise); and I think that what I have inserted will account for the sympathy which exists between Popery and Jacobinism; and explain how it happens that the new Whigs [the Democrats], are almost to a man, friends to the Papistical Claims. The Papists were the first broachers of their favourite doctrines, and it is very na ural that they should espouse the cause of those who furnished them with the very principles that distinguished them from their fellow

THAT SO THE PAPAL POWER MIGHT TAKE PLACE OF THE

subjects. The Jacobins are jealous of Cesar's rights, the Pope abridges them. The former would trample Cæsar under foot, the Pope long since set his foot on Cæsar's neck. The Jacobius account Cæsar but an instrument of State, a tool to be taken up, or thrown aside, at pleasure; the Pope once used Caesar's back to mount bis palfrey. The scripture speaks of the King as supreme, but the Romanists, who mould scripture to their purpose, as artists model a nose of wax, assert that the Pope is " Viceroy over bim."-Do the Jacobins, or the new Whigs, suppose, that in clothing the Papists with power, they shall promote the cause of liberty? No such thing. They will only ensure slavery of the most degrading species; that which enchains the mind, and denies what nature gave, and Protestantism exercises the right of private judgment. Grant but to the Papists all they demand, and we shall soon be encircled with those galling chains from which first the Reformation, and afterwards the Revolution, set us free.I now take my leave of you, for the present; wishing Mr. Canning joy of the new connexion which he has formed; and wishing the Democrats joy of Mr. Canning's co-operation with them in the hopeless task of satisfying the inordinate cravings of the Papists; but, seriously, the wish nearest my heart, is, that Parliament may adhere to the principles of the constitution, and save the country from Popish tyranny and republican domination.

Nov. 30, 1812.

I am, Sir,

Yours, &c.

J. D.

MELANCTHON'S SECOND LETTER.

(See page 220.)

The Origin of the Regal and Papal Supremacy in the Christian Church, and their Effects respectively on the State of Society:

A supremacy both in temporals and spirituals over all the states of Christendom, which the Popes had many years in view, but which the salutary control of the Emperors prevented them from usurping, was at Jast attained by Gregory VII. commonly called Hildebrand, who ascended the Pontifical Chair, in the year 1073. He was bred at Rome, long the theatre of intrigue and faction, where he acquired an extraordinary degree of boldness, versatility and acuteness of mind, and great popularity with the multitude. When elected, he, after the example of his predecessors, wrote to the Emperor Henry IV. for his permission to be consecrated. Cardinal Baronius, the Pope's own historian, acknowledges, that he was the last Pontiff, for whose elevation the Emperor's consent was