LETTER XIV.

The Power of the Pope.

We are now come to that article of your WE Church's doctrine, in which, if we are to take the facts, as you, and Dr. Doyle, and other of your writers represent them, the triumph of reason and common sense over the most inveterate and sacred prejudices has been most conspicuous. The monstrous claims of the Pope to a pre-eminence, not of rank merely, but of authority and jurisdiction over the greatest Princes of the earth,—his right to depose them for heresy and favouring heresy,his consequent right to absolve subjects from their allegiance,—are now, it seems, disclaimed by all who live beyond the boundaries of Italy. There, indeed, they appear to be still clung to, with fond, however unavailing, regret: and the most that could be obtained in the rescript of the Pope, in 1793, was, a declaration that the See of Rome never taught that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox; that an Oath to Kings separated from Catholic Communion can

be violated; or that it is lawful for the Bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions. Accordingly, it is worthy of remark, that when the judgment of foreign Universities, on these and similar points, was sought at the instance of Mr. Pitt, no attempt seems to have been made to obtain from any Italian quarter the disclaimer required. But to the responses of the oracle at Alcala or Douay, or elsewhere, little regard can be due, till it is shewn, that a right to decide on articles of Faith was ever allowed to them by any legitimate or acknowledged authority. I should rather insist, that the very necessity of having recourse to such and so various quarters, instead of going at once to Rome, proves most satisfactorily, that from Rome you could not obtain what was thought and felt to be necessary that this was, in short, on the very face of it, a mere counterpart of the expedient of Henry the Eighth,-adopted for the very same reasons and not entitled to so much respect; for his authorities were more numerous, in a degree which I will not stop to calculate. Yet his right to act on the judgment of Universities is treated by your writers with scorn: why is

* Speech of Sir J. C. Hippesley, p. 4.

your appeal to a part only of the same authorities entitled to more respect?

From these unaccredited documents let us

look to the authority to which you yourself

refer. It is contained in the Canon of the tenth Session of the Council of Florence, which, according to you, defined, that "full power "was delegated to the Bishop of Rome in the person of St. Peter, to feed, regulate, and

66

66

66

govern the Universal Church, as expressed "in the general Councils and holy Canons." THIS," you say, "IS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE, and beyond it no Roman"Catholic is required to believe."*

Now, here, Sir, I have once more ( and, I rejoice to say, for the last time) to remonstrate with you on the extreme laxity of the principle which regulates your conduct on these occasions. You know, as well as I can tell you, that this is very far from being a full or adequate representation of the Decree to which you refer; that much remains behind, which you felt it inconvenient to bring forward, and which you probably hoped, no adversary would

* Book of the Roman-Catholic Church, p. 119.

T

take the trouble of adducing against you. The real decree of the Council is as follows:

66

"Moreover, we define, that the holy Apos"tolic See and the Roman Pontiff have a primacy over the whole world, and that the "Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of "St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and true VICAR (or Representative, Torongans) OF

66

CHRIST, and that he is HEAD OF THE WHOLE

CHURCH, and the Father and Teacher of all "Christians; and that to him in St. Peter was delegated by our Lord Jesus Christ full

66

66

power to feed, rule (regere), and govern the universal Church; as also is contained in the acts of general Councils and in the holy "Canons."*

Is there no difference between these two statements? Is it nothing, that the Church has declared the Pope to be the Representative of our Lord Jesus, and, as such, (not in the sense of dignity and honour merely,) is the Head of the whole Church, the very name which our Lord assumed for himself? Is it nothing that these high titles accompany and explain the commission alleged to be given to him, of feeding, ruling, and governing the Church with

* Concil. Labbè, t. xiii. p. 516.

full power? Is it fair dealing to suppress particulars such as these? Does it accord with the dignity of your own honourable feelings, to expose yourself to be thus tracked and hunted through every citation you make, and to be indebted, at last, to the forbearance of an opponent for not exhibiting all your obliquities in a harsher tone, than that of remonstrance?

But for a clearer view of the doctrine of your Church, I will look beyond the decree itself to the other authorities to which it refers us. Of general Councils, we find the Council of Constance pronouncing an Anathema against the denial of the Pope's being immediate Vicar of Christ and the Apostles.*

The fourth, or great Laterane Council, declares that the secular powers shall be ad"monished, and, if necessary, be compelled by "ecclesiastical censures, to make oath that they "will, to the utmost of their power, strive to ex"terminate from their territory all Heretics, de"clared to be such by the Church, and further, "that if any temporal lord, being required and "admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his territory from all taint of heresy, he

66

* Sess. 8.