398 PAP 
univerfality of Arianifm, like to that of papifm in thefe 
1 aft ages. Bp. Bedell. 
PA'PIST, f. [papijle , Fr. papijla, Lat.] One that ad¬ 
heres to the communion of the pope and church of 
Rome.—The principal clergyman had frequent con¬ 
ferences with the prince, to perfuade him to change his 
religion, and become a papijl. Clarendon. 
The word Papijl ke ms to be confidered by the Roman- 
catholics themfelves as a nick-n3me of reproach, origi- 
nating in their maintaining the fupreme ecclefiaftical 
(and heretofore temporal) power of the pope, papa. 
This word, Papijl, came into ufe foon after the Refor¬ 
mation. From that time, the word Protejlant was ufed 
to denote all defcriptions of Chriftians who were not in 
communion with the church of Rome; and the word 
“ Papift” was ufed to denote that description of Chriftians 
which remained in communion with her. It is to be ob¬ 
served, that, before the laws palled in the late reign, 
to repeal the principal penal laws in force againlt the 
Roman-catholics, the word “ Papift” had a very extenlive 
Signification. In the language of the law, Papifts are 
divided into five clafles. The mere Papijl was a perfon 
who had done thofe a£ls which amounted to legal evi¬ 
dence of Papiltry ; the reputed Papift was a perfon gene¬ 
rally confidered to have done Such afts ; the Popijh re- 
cvfant was a Papift who abfented himfelf from the Pro- 
teftant church ; the Popijh recuj'ant convift was a Papift 
legally convifted of fuch abfence. Several Statutes in¬ 
flicted the penalties, legally incident to Popifli recufancy, 
on the commiflion of certain afts, and the omiflion of 
others, into which the religious principles of Roman- 
catholics frequently led them; and thus constituted an 
indirect recufancy, the fifth and laft Species of Papiftry, if 
it can be juftly called by that name. But “ Papift” was 
the general appellation given to the particular denomi¬ 
nation of Chriftians who are the fubjeft of the prefent 
article. It was always confidered by them to be a term 
of reproach, and they affefted the appellation of Roman- 
catholics. In the oath, which palled in the year 1791 
for the relief of the Roman-catholics, the perfon who 
takes it is made to fay, “ I, A. B. do hereby declare, 
that I do profefs the Roman-catholic religion.” Since 
the palling of that aft, the name of Roman-catholic has 
been generally given them; and it now feems to be their 
proper legal appellation. 
The hiftory of the Englilh Catholics, as a diftinfl body 
of Diffenters, begins with the reign of Elizabeth. In the 
courfe of her reign, many oppreffive, and even fanguinary, 
laws were enabled againft them. The juftice and policy 
of thofe laws lcarcely find at this time a Single advocate. 
But when they were enabled they found their defenders ; 
and, among them, none more able than lord-treafurer 
Burleigh, who published, or rather caufed to be published, 
in their defence, a book entitled “The Execution of 
juftice ;” in which he attempted to Ihow, that the Catholic 
priefts, executed in the reign of queen Elizabeth, were 
not executed for their religion, but for treasonable prac¬ 
tices. In anfwer to it, cardinal Allen publilhed his 
modeft “ Defence of the Englilh Catholics.” The fubjeft 
was revived in our times by Dr. Sturges’s “ Reflections 
on Popery.” To thofe, Dr. Milner oppofed his “Letters 
to a Prebendary;” one of the 1110ft fuccefsful works that 
has appeared in defence of the Roman-catholics. A dif- 
cuflion of this controversy would be mifplaced in a work 
like the prefent. We Shall only mention that, by a fuc- 
ceflion of legislative enactments during the reigns of queen 
Elizabeth, of the three firft Stuart monarchs, and of the 
three monarchs who filled the throne from the abdication 
of king James II. to the acceflion of king George II. the 
Catholics were Subjected to the heavieft pains, penalties, 
and disabilities. The laws by which they were inflicted 
may be reduced under four heads. 
1. The firft are thofe which Subjected them to penalties 
and punilhments for exercifing their religious worlhip ; 
under which head may be ranked the laws refpeCting their 
I S T. 
education, and the minifters of their church. By thefe 
laws, if an Englilh prieft of the church of Rome, born in 
the dominions of the crown of England, came to Eng¬ 
land from beyond the feas, or tarried in England three 
days without conforming to the church, he was guilty of 
high treafon ; and thofe incurred the guilt of high-treafon, 
who were reconciled to the fee of Rome, or procured 
others to be reconciled to it. By thefe laws alfo, Papifts 
were totally difabled from giving their children any edu¬ 
cation in their own religion: for, if they educated their 
children at home, then, for maintaining the fchool-mafter, 
if he did not repair to church, or was not allowed by the 
bilhop of the diocefe, they were liable to forfeit iol. 
a-month, and the fchool-mafter was liable to forfeit 40s. 
a-day ; and, if they fent their children for education to 
any School of their perfualion abroad, they were liable to 
forfeit iool. and the children, So fent, were difabled from 
inheriting, purchafing, or enjoying, any lands, profits, 
goods, debts, duties, legacies, or fums of money. Saying 
mafs was puniftiable by a forfeiture of 200 marks ; hearing 
it by a forfeiture of 100. See 1 Eliz. c. 2. 23 Eliz. c. 1. 
27 Eliz. c. 2. 29 Eliz. c. 6. 35 Eliz. c. 2. 2 Jac. I. 
c. 4. 3 Jac. I. c. 4, 5. 7 Jac. I. c. 6. 3 Car. I. c. 2. 
25 Car. II. c. 2. 7 & 8 W. III. c. 27. 1 Geo. I. c. 13. 
2. Under the Second head, were thofe laws which pu- 
nifhed the Englilh communicants with the church of 
Rome, for not conforming to the eftablilhed church. 
Thefe are generally called the Statutes of Recufancy. 
It fliould be obferved, that abfence from church alone, 
and unaccompanied by any other aft, conftituted recu¬ 
fancy, in the true fenfe of that word. Till the ftatute 
of 35 Eliz. c. 2, all nonconformifts were confidered as 
recufants, and were all equally fubjeft to the penalties 
of recufancy. That ftatute was the firft penal ftatute 
made againft Popilh Recufants by that name, and as dif- 
tinguilhed from other Recufants. From that ftatute arofe 
the diftinftion between Proteftant and Popilh Recufants; 
the former were fubjeft to fuch ftatutes of recufancy as pre¬ 
ceded that of the 35th of queen Elizabeth, and to Some 
ftatutes againft recufancy made fubfequently to that time; 
but they were relieved from them all by the Aft of 
Toleration in the firft year of king William’s reign. 
From 35 Eliz. c. 2, arofe alfo the diftinftion between 
Papifts, and perfons profefiing the popilh religion, and 
Popilh Recufants, and Popilh Recufants convift. 
By the ftatutes againft popilh recufants convift, they 
were punifhable by the cenfures of the church, and by a 
fine of 20I. for every month during which they abfented 
themfelves from church ; they were difabled from keeping 
arms in their houfes; from maintaining aftions, or Suits 
at law or in equity ; from being executors or guardians ; 
from prefenting toadvowfons; from praftiling in the law 
or phyfic; and from holding offices, civil or military; 
they were fubjeft to the penalties attending excommuni¬ 
cation ; were not permitted to travel five miles from 
home, unlefs by licence, upon pain of forfeiting all their 
goods ; and might not come to court, under pain of iool. 
A married woman, when convifted of recufancy, was 
liable to forfeit two-thirds of her dower or jointure : Ihe 
could not be executrix or adminiftratrix to her hulband, 
or have any part of his goods; and during her marriage 
file might be kept in prifon, unlefs her hulband redeemed 
her at the rate of iol. a-month, or the third part of his 
lands. Popilh recufants convift were, within three 
months after conviftion, either to Submit and renounce 
their religious opinions, or, if required by four juftices, 
to abjure the realm; and, if they did not depart, or if 
they returned without a licence, they were guilty of 
felony, and were to fufFer death as felons. See the fta¬ 
tutes referred to under the former head. 
3. As to the penalties or disabilities attending the 
refufal of Roman-catholics to take the Oath of Supremacy, 
the Declaration againft Tranfubftantiation, and the De¬ 
claration againft Popery; it mull be premifed, that the 
Roman-catholics make no objeftion to take the Oath of 
Allegiance, 
