of such change by the accumulation or the long pressure of the very same--not new, evils? In the former case, the people who approve, misapprehend its true character, while they are able to endure; in the latter, they see it clearly, oppression having opened their eyes. Such were the governments of Charles II. and James VII. Though some approved of them as the ordinance of God, yet, at the Revolution, the nation declared that they were not. And consequently they should never have been acknowledged as such. Men acknowledge the British Constitution at present as a power ordained of God. If Puseyism go on till the Protestantism of the empire be swamped in an inundation of Popery, the nation will form right views of the subject. May they soon entertain such views, lest such an event arrive! The friends of truth under the present government should say to it in such a manner as not to be misunderstood,--We will obey your good laws, because they are good; but by oaths or otherwise we will not recognise your authority as of God.--We will co-operate with you in doing what is good; but so long as you continue to support evil, we cannot swear allegiance to you. Abolish all oaths of allegiance, and we will act along with you in every right matter.--Were all those who hold the truth in the united kingdom to do so, would not the request extort regard? And might not rulers see the propriety of yielding? Were such oaths to the present government abolished, then those who love the truth might enter parliament, and act without being responsible for the evils of the civil constitution and of the administration, and at the same time lead to essential political reformation; and the people could with a clear conscience return to parliament such men as might be possessed of proper character, and be of known attachment to the truth. Were a door opened in this manner for men consistently uttering their voice in the councils of the nation, then means should be assiduously used, on the part of the people and on the part of their representatives, for scripturally reforming the State, and for giving to true religion that external countenance and support which is due to it. The government would not act a weak part in conceding the abolition of the oath in the said cases. It would rather thereby attach to the support of what is good in it, men who would be equally at least with all others, amenable to every good law, but bound to duty by ties far stronger than those which human laws themselves could fasten. A good government should maintain the oath; but a government such as the British, ought not to claim it for the purpose of securing allegiance. That government seems at present disposed to concede the abolition of that oath to the Catholics of Ireland. Why should not the friends of truth in the empire, strive for the abolition of the oaths of allegiance sworn by themselves, in using which they, directly or indirectly, support what is evil, while Catholics are