Images de page
PDF
ePub

his own words. Admitting the facts upon which this accusation is founded to be true, nothing can be more vulyar and unphilosophical than Lord Clarendon's application of them. With the assistance of Bayle's Dictionary and the Biographia Britannica, we could easily compile a bulky collection of the lives of wicked men named John, to which we might subjoin an exhortation to all parents not to suffer their children to be baptized by that abominable name. Perhaps Sir John Sinclair, Mr John Reeves, Mr John Bowles, Mr John Gifford, or some other person interested in supporting the honour of the name, might endeavour to demonstrate, that most of the crimes committed by the Johrs, had arisen from the depravity of human nature; and that the Richards and Thomases were, upon the whole, not a great deal more virtuous. In the same spirit, we have many histories of the Presbyterians and Independents, composed by intemperate members of the Church of England, -and of Protestants in general, composed by intemperate members of the Church of Rome; the olject of all which histories is to demonstrate, that the sects against which they are directed ought to be exterminated from the face of the carth; and the certain effect is to provoke recrimination, and to furnish materials for the amusement and edification of the enemies of Christianity in general.

The truth is, that the misery which Lord Clarendon supposes to have arisen from the Papal power, arose from the ignorance, superstition, and fanaticism of the dark ages; which, in all probability, would not have been less than they were, if all the bishops of the Christian church had preserved a perfect equality of rank. We see no reason for supposing that the decline of learning and true religion would have been retarded, if, after the fall of the Western empire, the different nations which belonged to the Latin church had formed themselves into separate and independent religious communities; nor do we see any thing in the condition of the Greek and other Oriental churches, which induces us to believe that they derived any advantage from the schism which divided them from the communion of Rome. We readily admit, that the Protestant churches which were founded in tlie sixteenth century, derived great advantages from their separation from the Sce of Rome; but we attribute those advantages, not to the separation itself, but to the circumstance of its having taken place in a learned and inquisitive age, and having been accompanied by great and important alterations both in the doctrine and the discipline of the Church. If the Church of England had assumed her independence in the reign of Henry !!, instead of that of Henry VIII, perhaps her present condi

*

tion would have resembled that of the church of Muscovy. If the children of Henry VIII. had imitated their father, in retaining nearly the whole of Popery, except the authority of the Pope, we should have thought the abrogation of the payment of first fruits and tenths to the See of Rome, very dearly pur,chased, at the expense of the miseries of the last years of that esccrable tyrant.

In our opinion, the most substantial inconvenience which arises from the authority of the Pope, and, indeed, the only one of considerable magnitude, is its tendency to perpetuate the corruptions which Protestants impute to the Roman Catholic religion. What we consider as an inconvenience, however, Catholics naturally consider as an advantage. They maintain, that, setting aside all consideration of the divine institution of the Papacy, the unity of the church, as they understand that unity, could not subsist, if the papal authority were destroyed: --and here it may not be amiss to add a short explanation of the sense in which the unity of the Church is commonly understood by Catholics.

Catholics believe, that the Catholic or Universal Church is a society of divine institution, of which it is the duty of all Christians to be members, and which is composed of a number of smaller societies, called particular churches. It is not material to the present question, whether, by particular churches, we understand national churches, as the Churches of France, Spain, and England ; or societies of Christians, each governed by one bishop, as the Churches of Paris, Toledo, and Canterbury. The latter is the proper and ancient acceptation of the terin. The unity of the Catholic church consists in the agreement of particular churches, not in rites and ceremonies, which are admitted to be of inferior importance, but in doctrine and government, which are the essentials of Christianity. Two particular churches which compel their members to profess opposite doctrines, and which refuse to hold fraternal communion with each other, cannot both be members of the Catholic church. The same assertion may be made, a fortiori, of two particular churches which excommunicate and anathematize each other. The Church of Spain, for instance, pronounces the Church of Englaud to be heretical and schismatical. The Church of England, on the other hand, charges the Church of Spain, in common with all the churches of the Roman communion, with blasphe

my

* The payments of all sorts which the Pope received from France, amounted to less than 16,000!. per annum, on an average of bye cars ending 1768. Duclos, Voyzge en Italie, p. 40,

*

my and idolatry.

Whether these mutual accusations be true or false, it is quite obvious, that the churches which bring them against each other, cannot both be members of the Car tholic Church, according to the preceding description of it.

Such being the notion which the Catholics entertain respecting the unity of the Catholic Church, it remains to inquire, how that unity is to be preserved, when the unity of the state is dissolved, and the great body of Christians is no longer subject to one Sovereign. It is contended by all Catholics, and admitted by many Protestants, + that, in the present state of the world, the unity of the Church, in the Catholic sense, can only be maintained by the adoption of some common tribunal, entrusted with a certain degree of jurisdiction over all particular churches. Whether this tribunal be composed of one person, or of many-whether it be called Pope, or General Council, it must necessarily be deemed a foreign jurisdiction, and an invite sion of the rights of the Sovereign, as those rights are understood by Lord Clarendon, and by many other writers.

No person who is acquainted with the heat and passion with which many controversies have been carried on, even in modern times, within the pale of the Church of Rome, can doubt, that if particular churches in that communion enjoyed the same independence on all other churches, which Protestant churches enjoy, every Catholic country would long ago have erected many doctrines into articles of faith, in addition to those points on which all Catholics are agreed. Nothing but the prudence and management of the See of Rome, and the necessity which is incumbent on the Pope, of consulting the temper of all the churches under his jurisdiction, has prevented Thomism froin becoming the established religion in one country, Scotisın in a second, Jansenism in a third, and Molinism in a fourth.

Whether the Catholics are mistaken in considering unity of doctrine as one great criterion of the Catholic church, is a question into which we do not mean to enter at present.

If ihey

are

For the blasphemy of the Church of Rome, see the Thirty-first Article of Religion. For her idolatry, see the Honilies, passim, and the Declaration against Popery, so Car. II, st. 2.

+ John Fox, the Martyrologist, was of' opinion, that if the Pope could be prevailed upon to turn Protestant, and to renounce those pretensions which are as offensive to most Catholics as to Protestants, ‘his opposers should not refuse but that some one m:n may ' have the principall place of counsell and government in the Churc

affairs, as being a thing, which would have many conveniences in • it, when it might be done with security.' See liis Life, prelised to his lets and Monuments.

surped Supremacy; and the Duty of Catholic Suljects to Protestant Sovereigns. Except with reference to the conflicts between the Pope and temporal princes, very little occurs in any part of the work, which can justity the adoption of the first part of the title ; and Lord Clarendon's sentiments respecting the countenance and assistance which religion and policy should give each other,' do not materially differ from the principles generally prevalent in the intolerant age during which he lived. • The chief object which Lord Clarendon had in view in the

composition of this work, was to demonstrate two propositions, which we will subjoin in his own words.

• The first is, the extreme scandal and damage religion hath sus. tained from this exorbitant affectation of superiority and sovereignty in the Pope ; the greatest schisms and separations amongst Christians having towed from that fountain ; and from thence the greatest ruin to kings and kingdoms, in the vast consumption of treasure and blood in unnatural wars and rebellions, having had their original. The second is, that Catholic princes themselves, who, for their own benefit and mutual exchange of conveniences, * do continue that correspondence with the Pope, and do themselves pay and enjoin their subjects to render that submission and obedience to him, have not that opinion of his divine right, nor do they look upon it as any part of their religion ; so that in truth the obligation which is imposed upon the Catholic subjects of Protestant princes is another religion, or at least consists of more articles of faith than the Catholic princes and their subjects do profess to believe.'

In a subsequent passage, the second proposition is more concisely stated in the following terms.

• Catholic princes themselves, and their subjects who continue their correspondence with the Pope, and do pay that submission and obedience to him, do it not out of any opinion of the divinity of it, nor do look upon it as a vital part of their religion.' p. 660.

Such being the sentiments of the noble author respecting the Papal authority, the historical part of his work is drawn up in a niode entirely conformable to them. It contains, in the first place, we will not say an exaggerated, but certainly a very highIv coloured picture, of the enormities of the several pretended Ticars of Jesus Christ; and, secondly, an ample account of the inost remarkable instances of resistance to their pretensions, which have proceeded from princes and governments which adhiered to their communion. In the relation of these examples of resistance, Lord Clarendon frequently stops to remind the reader, of the absolute incompatibility of such conduct, on the part of Catholic states, with a serious persuasion that the Bishop of Rome has, by divine or apostolical institution, any spiritual authority out of his own diocese. We will give a short

The words in Italics contain an unguarded admission of consi. derable importance,

1

p. 619.

specimen of our author's mode of reasoning 'on this subject, which may also serve as a specimen of the style of his work, coirsidered as a literary composition.

It is well known, that the interdict of the republic of Venice by Paul V., in the year 1605, was the last instance in which the Pope attempted to brandish that spiritual thunder which had been so formidable during the dark ages. The · shrewd brushes' which he received in this affair, and in several others during the preceding century, have confined him to his cave ever since, at the mouth of which he sits

grinning at the pilgrims who pass by.' To a long, and not nnentertaining * account of that impotent transaction, Lord Clarendon sabjoins the following remarks.

• The wounds which the Papal Chair received in that conflict may be closed and bound up; but the scars thereof can never be wiped out. To have all his claims of a supreme ecclesiastical dominion, by arguments and places of Scripture refuted and retorted upon him; to have his excommunication examined, and contradicted as invalid, by the rules of law; and his interdict resisted and condemned as without ground ; and all this by a sovereign body of Catholics, is, and will continue to posterity, an undeniable evidence, that those excesses and powers were not held of the essence of Catholic religion; and when such fulminations may pass without being felt, and are recalled without leaving smart or sign behind them, and without the least acknowledgment that they were so much as taken notice of, men cannot but believe that they have no terror in and from themselves, but from the stupidity of the persons who are affected by them; and whilst the memory of Paul the Fifth is preserved in the ecclesiastical annals, the distinction of spiritual and temporal persons in the administration of the sovereign justice of kingdoms will be neglected as ridiculous, † and the Pope's excommunication of sovereign princes will be held fit to be derided.' p. 523. VOL. XIX. NO. 38.

Ff

The

p. 499,

* A priest of Padua, being asked by the Podestà, whether he preferred being hanged for obeying the Pope, or being excommunicated for obeying the Senate, replied, that for his part, he had rather be excommunicated thirty years, than be hanged a quarter of an hour.

+ By the distinction between spiritual and temporal persons in the administration of justice, Lord Clarendon means the benefit of clergy, in its original acceptation, the abolition of which was one of the two principal causes of the quarrel between the Pope and the Republie. The other measure which the Pope endeavoured to counteract, was the establishment of a law of mortmain. Here it may be observed, that the Pope has tery seldom attempted, even in the darkest times, . to wage war with temporal princes on private and personal grounds. In almost every case, he has appeared in the character of the defender of the real or supposed rights of the clergy of the country,

« PrécédentContinuer »