'm LIBERTY of 
tent to demand, and each accordingly does demand, from 
candidates for power, a facred pledge of obedience to the 
laws ; not partially, but completely ; not to fome only, 
but to all the laws of the. conrtitution under which they 
would exercife power. So that, with regard to the point 
in which we are immediately concerned, American and 
Britifh fubjeits are on an equality ; for it is required of 
both, if they would fill offices and be inverted with pub¬ 
lic authority, that they Should previourty be bound by an 
oath to fupport the whole of the conrtitution in all its 
branches. The catholics will notfubmit to be fo bound. 
They' will accede only to an imperfeft obligation. They 
will promife and pay obedience to the king and legifla- 
ture in temporalities alone. The conrtitution prefcribes 
more extenfive obedience. They' refufe compliance be¬ 
yond temporalities. They plead religious fcruples. In 
matters of religion they are at liberty to confult their own 
confidence. But it is confident neither with moderation 
nor with reafon, to requefc that for their fake we rtiould 
fo newly mode! the conrtitution, as totally to difregard 
religion ; though religion is the bafis of morality and of 
order among the people ; and though, in the Britifh empire 
particularly,the firm eftablifhment of the protellant religion 
is eilential to the exiitence of a proteftant government. 
We have now gone through fome material parts of 
the petition prefented by the body of Englifh catholics. 
The remarks made on them have been offered in vindi¬ 
cation of our legiflature, and in defence of thofe precau¬ 
tions which fecure to us the liability and permanence of 
the proteftant religion. It would be happy for this empire, 
if observations on other fubjedts of difference between us 
and the catholics were quite unneceffary. Such however 
is the language and fuch the tone of writings difleminated 
among the Romanifts in Great Britain and Ireland, that, 
unlefs we are content their aflertions fhould be deemed 
incontrovertible; unlefs we are prepared to fee our own 
caufe overborne by the nncenfing and undifg.uifed efforts 
of the catholics to prejudice the reformed religion in the 
opinion of all to whom they can have accefs as authors or 
minifters ; we are compelled to proceed farther, and to 
declare without referve, that we conceive it is neither 
compatible with expediency, nor reconcileable with con¬ 
fcience, that, in addition to the rights.already enjoyed, more 
ample conceflions fhould be made to them, and greater 
encouragement be .given to the adoption of their doc¬ 
trines and worfliip. 
Our reafonsaretliefe : They exult in vilifying the tranrta- 
tion of the holy fcriptures appointed to be read in our 
Churches; and, by endeavouring to vitiate the confeccation 
cf a metropolitan at an early period of the reformation re- 
flored, they labour to deftroy the foundation on which refts 
the validity of our facerdotal funflions. Witnefs the late re¬ 
publication and continued notoriety of Ward’s Errata ; the 
cbarafter and objects of which work need not here be de¬ 
scribed, as they have been ably drawn and iuftly expofed 
by Dr. Ryan among the Irifh, and by Dr. Kipling among 
our Engiifh divines; men, both eminent; and both en¬ 
titled to our grateful thanks for fuccefsful exertion of 
their abilities in our behalf. A popular trafl pronounces 
this judgment of catholics on proteftants : “ We are con¬ 
vinced that they are fchifmatics, by feparating themfelves 
from the communion of the church cf Chrilt; and here¬ 
tics, by di(Tenting from her dodtrine in many fubftantial 
articles ; and confequently that they have no part in the 
church of Chrift, no lawful million, no fucceflion from 
the apolties, no authority at all to preach the word of 
God, or adminifter the facraments ; in fine, no fliare in 
the promifes of Chrift’s heavenly kingdom, (exceptitig 
the cafe of invincible ignorance ,) from which the fcrip- 
tnre in fo many places excludes heretics and fchifmatics.” 
The Rhemifh tranflators affirm, “ that in matters of reli¬ 
gion, in praying, hearing their fei mens, prefence at their 
lervice, partaking of their facraments, and all other com¬ 
municating with them in fpiritual things, it is a great and 
.damnable lin to deal with them.” What (hall we fay to 
C ONSCIEN C E. 
thele facts ? What inferences are immediately deducible 
from the writings juft mentioned ; writings not difavowed 
by the catholics as obfolete and virtually rejetted ; but 
recognized as ffandards of catholic principles, and at this 
day induftrioufly recommended by them? What but 
thefe are the obvious inferences ? Your miniftry is holden 
in contempt; your churches are confidered as profane; 
your rites are branded with condemnation ; you are (hut 
out from all participation of God’s mercy in Chrift.! 
Such are the ideas the catholics entertain, and fuch the 
boldnefs with which they temple not to avow and propa¬ 
gate their ideas concerning you, even though they are in 
a (fate of political inequality. And can we think it ex¬ 
pedient, that men fo perfuaded and fo difpofed fhould be 
invefted with political authority over us? Can we think 
it expedient, that opinions thus uncharitable and inimical 
towards us fhould be rtrengther.ed with power to carry 
their operation into full effect ? Impollible ; unlefs, for 
the punifhment of our infenfibility to the bieifings of pure 
religion, the time is come when in our own perfons fliall 
be verified the adage, Dcus dementat, quos vult perdere .— Pe¬ 
tition of the Engbijh Roman Catholics confidered., by Huntingjord 
bifhop of Glouctjler ; Sept. 1S10. 
Lord Somers, however, (Speech and . Obfervations, 
Sept. 1812..) thinks the propriety of admitting catholics 
into the houfes of parliament but a .Secondary confider- 
ation. He calls for their admiffion, in the fir ft inftance, 
as for a tneafure imperative on the legiflature, a meafure 
of obligation on the principles of jvjtice and right. But 
his lordihip feems not to have diftinguifhed fufiiciently be¬ 
tween rights natural and rights pofitive, and the claims 
which refpeclively grow out of them. To life and liberty 
man has an abfolute claim ; they are his natural rights, 
indefeafible, unalienable. To protection of his perfon, 
fecure polfeffion of his property, impartial adminilfration 
of law on occafions of appealing to it, every man who 
lives inoffensively in civil fociety has an abfolute claim ; 
they are his focial rights, for the enjoyment of which he 
contributes his fhare towards promoting the chief ends of 
fociety. But fuperior authority, and more efpecially that 
kind and degree of authority which fliall enable him to le- 
giflate for others, and thus in efteft bind others to obedi¬ 
ence, no Iubje< 5 t of a free conrtitution can claim as a right 
natural. If he has any claim to it, the authority can be 
due to him only as a right pofitive, originating in fome 
law recognized by the conrtitution. Now where is the 
law, which gives to catholics, who will not qualify, the 
pofitive right of voting in parliament ? That no fuch 
law, and confequently no fuch right emanating from law, 
at prelent exirts, is evident; for, “ Whether or not the 
legiflature fliall enact a law conferring fuch pofitive right ?” 
is the very point on which we are at variance in our opi¬ 
nions. Until fuch law is enacted, catholics can have no 
pofitive right, andaffuredly they have no natural right, to 
be our legiflators. The idea therefore of their right to ad¬ 
miffion into the houfes of parliament muft be relinquifhed 
as founded in mifconception. 
His lordfhjp’s pamphlet has been moft ably anfwered 
by the bifhop of Glouceiter, who aiks, “What will be 
the inquiries of that rtatefman, who is firmly attached to 
the exifting conrtitution, and who, in his profeffion of 
Chriltianity as taught by the church of England, is fu¬ 
rious and Sincere; when he deliberates on the expediency 
of admitting catholics to legillate for proteftants ? It 
will be natural for him to afk; Has it arifen only from 
prejudice, vulgar and unfounded in any juft caule, that 
the names of Philip, of Mary, of James the Second, rtiould 
have been fo detefted by Britifh proteftants ? Was it 
merely from caprice and defire of change, thatj after the 
monarchy had defcended in the old line of fuc'-eflion for 
fix hundred years, the legiflature departed from that line, 
and verted the royal dignity where it would be accepted 
on the -exprefs condition, that whoever wore the crown 
fhould be a proteftant member of the church of England? 
Did the jealoufy, which prompted enlightened and wile 
