OATHS
179
OATHS
Garnett, Gavan, and Heath; the last two have left writ-
ings against it. Another illustration will be found
in the history of the first Lord Baltimore, whose at-
tempt to settle in Virginia, where the oath had
been introduced in 1609, was defeated by it. The
second Lord Baltimore, on the other hand, ordered
his adventurers to take the oath, but whether he
insisted on this is uncertain (Hughes, "Soc. of Jesus
in N. America", pp. 260-1, 451 and passim). King
Charles I generally recognized that Catholics could
not conscientiously take the Oath of Supremacy, and
frequently exerted his prerogative to help them to
avoid it. On the other hand his theory of the Di-
vine right of kings induced him to favour the Oath of
Allegiance, and he was irritated with the Catholics
who refused it or argued against it. Urban VIII is
said to have condemned the oath again in 1626 (Reusch,
327), and the controversy continued. Preston still
wrote in its defence; so also, at King Charles's order,
did Sir William Howard (1634) ; this was probably the
future martyr (q. v.). Their most important oppo-
nent was Father Edward Courtney (vere Leedes; cf.
Gillow, "Bibl. Diet.", s. v. Leedes, Edward), who was
therefore imprisoned by Charles. The matter is fre-
quently mentioned in the dispatches and the "Rela-
tione" of Panzani (q. v.), the papal agent to Queen
Henrietta Maria (Maziere Brady, "Catholic Hier-
archy", Rome, 18S3, p. SS).
III. Oath of Abjdration under the Common- wealth, 1643. — When the Puritan party had gained the upper hand during the civil wars, the exaction of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance fell into desue- tude, and they were repealed by the Act of February, 1650, and their place taken by an "engagement of allegiance" to the Commonwealth. But the lot of the Catholics was not only not ameliorated thereby; it was made far worse by the enactment of an "Oath of Abjuration". This was passed 19 August, 1643, and afterwards, in 1656, reissued in an even more ob- jectionable form. Everyone was to be "adjudged a Papist" who refused this oath, and the consequent penalties began with the confiscation of two thirds of the recusant's goods, and went on to deprive him of almost every civic right. Monstrous as the enact- ments were, their barbarity caused some shame among the more high-minded, and in practice they were sparingly enforced. They checked the gaUicanizing party among the English Catholics, which had at first been ready to offer forms of submission similar to the old oath of Allegiance, which is stated (Reusch, 335) to have been condemned anew about this time by Innocent X. The chief writer on the Catholic side was the lawyer Austin, who generally used the pseudonym Birchley.
IV. The Test Oath, 1672, 1678, also known as the Declaration or Attestation Oath. — The first Parliament after the Restoration revived the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, which were taken on 14 July, 1660. The Catholics in England being at first in some favour at Court, managed, as a rule, to escape taking it. In Ireland the old controversy was revived through an address to the Crown, called "The Irish Remonstrance", which emphasized the principles of the condemned Oath of Allegiance. It had been drawn up by a Capuchin friar (who afterwards left the order), called Peter Walsh (Valesius), who published many books in its defence, which pub- lications were eventually placed upon the Index. (Maziere Brady, "Catholic Hierarchy", Rome, 1888, p. 126.) After the conversion of James, then Duke of York, the jealousy of the Protestant party in- creased, and in 1672 a Test Act was carried by Shaftesbury, which compelled all holders of office un- der the Crown to make a short "Declaration against Transubstantiation", viz., to swear that "there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ... at or after the conaecration thereof by
any person whatsoever" (25 Chas. II, c. 2). This
test was effective: James resigned his post of Lord
High Admiral. But when the country and the Parlia-
ment had gone mad over Oates's plot, 1678, a much
longer and more insulting test was devised, which
added a further clause that "The invocation of the
virgin Mary, or any Saint and the Sacrifice of the
Mass . . . are superstitious and idolatrous . . and
that I make this declaration without any evasion,
equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and
without any dispensation already granted me by the
pope, &c., &c. (30 Chas. II, ii. 1). In modern times,
the formula has become notorious (as we shall see)
under the title of "the Iving's Declaration". At the
time it was appointed for office holders and the mem-
bers of both Houses, except the Duke of York. On
the death of Charles, James II succeeded, and he
would no doubt have gladly abolished the anti-Catho-
lic oaths altogether. But he never had the oppor-
tunity of bringing the project before Parliament. Of
the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance we hear le.ss
in this reign, but the Test was the subject of constant
discussion, for its form and scope had been expressly
intended to hamper a reform such as James was insti-
tuting. He freed himself, however, more or less from
it by the Dispensing Power, especially after the decla-
ration of the judges, June, 1686, that it was contrary to
the principles of the constitution to prevent the Crown
from using the services of any of its subjects when
they were needed. But the Revolution of 1688
quickly brought the Test back into greater vogue than
ever. The first Parliament summoned after the tri-
umph of William of Orange added a clause to the Bill
of Rights, which was then passed, by which the Sov-
ereign was himself to take the Declaration (1 W. & M.,
sess. 2, c. 2.). While the Test was obligatory on hold-
ers of every sort of office, there was little need to insist
on the old Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance. They
were therefore cut down to a line or two, and joined
with the oath of fidelity to King William (1 W. & M.,
sess. 1, c. 8). By this unworthy device no Catholic
could ever be admitted to accept the new regime,
without renouncing his faith. This law marks the
consummation of Enghsh anti-Catholic legislation.
V. The Irish Oath of 1774 to E.mancipation, 1829. — For ninety years there seemed no hope of ob- taining legislative relief from the pressure of the penal laws, and the first relaxations were due to external pressure. In 1770 General Burgoyne had proposed to free Catholic soldiers from the obligations of the Test, but in vain. In 1771, however, it was necessary to pacify Canada, and the Quebec Act was passed, the first measure of toleration for Cathohcs sanctioned by Parliament since the days of Queen Mar>' Tudor. Soon after began the war of American Indipcndcnce, the difficulties of which gradually awakened English statesmen to the need of reconciling Catholics. The Irish Government took the first step by undoing Wil- liam Ill's wicked work of joining the profession of fidelity to the sovereign with the rejection of papal au- thority. In 1774 an oath was proposed of allegiance to King George (§ 1) and rejection of the Pretender (§ 2), but without prejudice to the pope's spiritual au- thority, or to any dogma of the Faith. The alleged malpractice of "no faith with heretics" was renounced (5 3), so was the deposing power (§ 4), but without the objectionable words, "impious, damnable and hereti- cal." The "temporal and civil jurisdiction of the pope, direct and indirect within the realm" was also abjured (§ 5), and the promise was given that no dis- pensation from this oath should be considered valid (§ 6). This Irish Oath, of 1774, was accepted by the legislative authorities as proof of loyalty, and it was freely taken, though several clauses were infelici- tously worded, though no advantage accrued from so doing. In 1778 however, the first ReHef Bill, also caUed Sir George Savile's Act, to relieve the English
