Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

to which they do not conceive him to be entitled. Every Catholic prince in fact believes, that not only the bishop of the diocese in which he lives, but even the rector of the parish in which his palace is situated, has a certain jurisdiction over brim by divine institution ; yet no Catholic prince will scruple to punish either the bishop or the priest for the smallest invasion of his temporal authority. Upon the whole, we are not aware that the laxest Catholics have ever gone so far as to place the supremacy of the Pope on the same footing with the preeminence of primates and metropolitans; that is to say, to consider it as a merely human institution.

The writers whom we oppose to Lord Clarendon, appear to as to deviate as far from the truth as he does, but in an opposite direction. Because all Catholics acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Pope to a certain extent, the writers in question maintain, that the standard of the Vatican is the authentic measure of that jurisdiction. The sentiments of this school may be conveniently given in the words of Mr Le Mesurier.

There is no article of their communion, the supremacy of • the Pope, invocation of saints, communion in one kind, pur

gatory, transubstantiation itself, which is more solemnly de• creed than that which relates to the persecution of heretics, 6 and the deposing of princes and kings, who are either heretics • themselves, or abettors of those that are.' Serious Exam. &c. p. 54. "The Pope has always been, and continues to be, as s far as he can, the most absolute of despots : such at least is * the doctrine of his church.' Ibid. p. 61. We could easily fill a greater number of pages

than we can afford to devote to the whole of this article, with similar passages, taken from books written since the year 1800, We obs serve that these writers sometimes unwarily fall into Lord Clarendon's line of argument, which is entirely inconsistent with their own. Mr Le Mesurier informs us (Sequel, &c. p. 21.), that from the end of the eleventh century to the middle of the sixteenth, there was not, as he believes, a being in the church * that presumed to advance a word against the king-deposing s and king-killing doctrine ; and hundreds wrote in support of

it.' Another labourer in the same vineyard, however, seems to give a somewhat different account of the state of public opinion during the middle ages. The following passage occurs in an anonymous pamphlet, called Catholic Emancipation, which was published in the year 1805, p. 12. • At present, the King • of England is the supreme head of the church, as well as of < the state.

His supreinacy, as head of the church, is recog$ nized by a variety of statutes, one of them as old as the thirty.

futh year of Edward the First, (1306).'

These gentlemen have the faculty of blowing hot and cold with the same breath. When it is their object to render Catholics odious in the eyes of Protestants, they represent all mitigated sentiments respecting the Papal authority, as modern innovations, adopted merely for the purpose of rendering that authority somewhat less terrible in Protestant countries. On the other hand, when they wish to prove that the system of Henry VIII. derived support from the example of some of the most illustrious of his predecessors, they magnify every instance of resistance to the tyranny and extortion of the Popes, into a total renunciation of their authority.

It is not our intention to undertake the discussion of these thread-bare controversies, which are treated with contempt in every country except our own, and which we firmly believe will be nearly forgotten in England before the year 1820. It may not, however, be superiluous, for the information of some of our readers, to give a short account of the famous king-deposing and king-killing doctrine,' which we have mentioned more than once in the course of this article.

The right of the See of Rome to depose heretical princes, is foundled upon two propositions, which ought to be separately considered. The first proposition is, that the people of every country have the right of resisting, and even of deposing their sovereign, if such resistance be necessary to the preservation of the established religion. We believe this proposition to be true: But, whether it be true or false, those who do not admit the truth of it have no alternative, except to allow that the religion of the country ought to depend entirely on the caprice of the sovereign for the time being. It must be remembered, that during the middle ages, the Roman Catholic religion was established throughout all the Western world, with the exception of that part of Spain which was in the possession of the Moors. The word heretic may sound harshly in a Protestant car; but, in reality, it means nothing more, in the mouth of a Catholic, than a Christian who believes the Roinan Catholic religion to be false ; perhaps to be blasphemous and idolatrous. In the dark ages, when religious zeal was much stronger than it is at present, it was not supposed that the defence and pro

tection

* Bellarminus de Summo Pontifice, Lib. V. cap. 7. . Non licet

Christianis tolerare Regem infidelem aut hæreticum, si ille co: netur pertrahere subditos ad suam hæresim, vel infidelitatem. At

judicare, an Rex pertrahat ad hæresim, necne, pertinet ad Pon tificem, cui est commissa cura religionis. Ergo Pontificis est jut dicare, regem esse deponendum vel non deponendum.'

tection of the Catholic religion, which was held to be the most important function of the Sovereign, could be safely entrusted to a person who believed that religion to be a mass of superstition and error. For this reason, it was conceived to be a fundamental law of every Catholic kingdom, that a heretic was not capable of inheriting or of retaining the crown. As the modern principle of toleration was entirely unknown in those times, we must not wonder that a favourer of heretics, that is to say, of the declared enemies of what was commonly held to be the true religion, was regarded nearly in the same light as a heretic.

It may be observed, too, that those persons who declaim in the loudest terms against the truth of the proposition laid down in the preceding paragraph, are equally ready with the rest of mankind to act upon it, when they find it expedient to do so. In England, for instance, before the Revolution, it was considered as an article of faith, that it is not lawful, on any pretence whatever, to take up arms against a lawful sovereign ;

not for the maintenance of the lives and liberties of ourselves or others; nor for the defence of religion; nor for the pre

servation of a church or state ; no, nor yet, if that could be • imagined possible, for the salvation of a soul; no, not for the redemption of the whole world.'* This kind of language, which was as common in the mouths of the Tillotsons and Burnets, t as of the Sprats and Crewes, did not present the English nation from receiving with open arms a foreign prince, who invaded the country for the avowed purpose of resisting by force the daily attacks which the King was making on the established religion. In our opinion, those persons who fairly and openly inform their Sovereign what he may expect, if he transgresses the just limits of his authority, are much less dangerous enemies to him, than those who unintentionally tempt him to liis ruin by pompous theories of obedience, wirich are sure to vanish into air, as soon as the hour is come for putting them in practice. No nation which is strongly attached to the established religion ever did, or ever will, suffer the prince to tamper with it at his pleasure. We may add, that the property and privileges of the clergy will always be considered by ihemselves as an essential part of the established religion; and

that

* Bishop Sanderson, quoted by Sacheverell's counsel, State Trials,

V

p. 735.

+ A specimen of Tillotson's language on this subject will be given hereafter. It is difficult to acquit him, and impossible to acquit Burnet, of gross prevarication on the question of resistance.

that if the clergy are popular, the laity will always assist them in the defence of their rights against the temporal sovereign.

The second proposition is, that the Pope is the sole judge of all matters appertaining to religion; and that in all doubtful cases, both of belief and of practice, it is the duty of all Catholics to apply to him for information, and to submit blindly to his decisions. In other words, the Pope is the absolute moQarch of the Catholic Church. From this proposition, it was inferred by the Popes and their flatterers, that it was part of the oftice of the Pope to determine, from the particular circumstances of the case, whether resistance to the Prince was necessary to the preservation of religion. This proposition is so agreeable to the Court of Rome, that we doubt not that Mr Le Mesurier and several other writers, who have laboured so strenuously to convince the English and Irish Catholics that it is the true doctrine of their Church, would receive some distinguishing mark of the favour of that Court, if it were reestablished in its ancient splendour. For our own parts, however, we know of 10 other mode of ascertaining whether Catholics believe the Pope to be the absolute monarch of their Church, than by observing the degree of obedience which they actually pay to liim : and we advise those persons who really wish for information on this subject, and who have no local and personal knowledge of the state of the Papal authority in Catholic countries, to lay aside the pamphlets of Mr Le Mesurier and Dr Milner, and to betake themsclves to the reading of history. We do not recommend the historical writings either of Sir Richard Musgrave or of Mr Powden, but those of almost any sober and judicious author, either Catholic or Protestant. Those who have not the opportunity of entering into a laborious investigation of the subject, will probably find, in the work now before us, a sufficient number of facts to convince them that the notions of the Papal authority which have been lately revived, are greatly exaggerated. Although we think that Lord Clarendon has failed in his attempt to prove that Catholics do not believe the authority of the Pope to be of divine institution, he has sufficiently deinonstrated that the Catholics pay very little practical regard to the mandates of the head of their Church, except when' those mandates coincide with their own inclinations.

In what we have lately said respecting the deposing power of the Pope, we have supposed the Roman Catholic religion to be the established religion of the country. We shall speak afterwards of the attacks of the Sce of Rome on Protestant Princese

We now. request the reader to turn back to p. 436, and peruse Lord Clareudon's bill of indictment against the Pope in

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 subjcin 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 object of all which histories is to demonstrate, that the sects against which they are directed ought to be exterminated from the face of the earth ; 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 has 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 the 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

« PrécédentContinuer »