surped Supremacy; and the Duty of Catholic Subjects 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 justify 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 sustained from this exorbitant affectation of superiority and sovereignty in the Pope; the greatest schisms and separations amongst Christians having flowed 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.' p. 649.

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 mode entirely conformable to them. It contains, in the first place, we will not say an exaggerated, but certainly a very highly coloured picture, of the enormities of the several pretended Vicars of Jesus Christ; and, secondly, an ample account of the most remarkable instances of resistance to their pretensions, which have proceeded from princes and governments which adhered 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

specimen of our author's mode of reasoning on this subject, which may also serve as a specimen of the style of his work, considered 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 unentertaining* account of that impotent transaction, Lord Clarendon subjoins the following remarks.

out.

The wounds which the Papal Chair received in that conflict may be closed and bound up; but the scars thereof can never be wiped 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

* 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. p. 499.

,

By the distinction between spiritual and temporal persons in the administration of justice, Lord Clareridon 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 Republic. 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 very 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 deof the real or supposed rights of the clergy of the country.

The disputes between Lewis XIV. and Alexander VII., are ́ also commented on in the same spirit; and if the life of the author, which terminated at Rouen on the 9th of December 1674, had been prolonged a few years, the disputes between the same monarch and Innocent XI., which commenced in the year 1678, would have afforded him an excellent opportunity of again inculcating the truth of his second proposition.

Whatever difference of opinion may subsist respecting other parts of the subject, we believe that candid persons of all persuasions will admit, that Lord Clarendon has not exaggerated the pretensions of the See of Rome. It is now, indeed, more than two centuries since the Popes have seriously attempted to put in execution the most offensive of their imaginary powers; and we believe it to be nearly impossible, that the concurrence of circumstances, which supported the extravagant authority of the See of Rome during the middle ages, can ever again take place. The Popes, however, to the best of our knowledge, have never openly and explicitly renounced the pretensions of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII.; nor are we aware that they have ever permitted them to be called in question within the circle of their immediate temporal jurisdiction. In this respect they resemble most other princes, who obstinately retain the shadow of authority, long after they have been deprived of the substance. In the year 1635, the Court of Rome could not be prevailed upon to sanction an oath of allegiance which the English Catholics were desirous of taking, as the price of their release from the penalties and disabilities incurred by their recusancy. The Pope, indeed, was willing to give thie King all imaginable private assurances, that he had not the slightest intention of attempting to depose him. But he could not be induced by any representations made by the English Catholics, to abandon the abstract proposition. * Considerable vestiges of this want of accommodation to the prevailing sentiments of the age, have been discernible at a much later period; and, indeed, are discernible at the present moment. In the year 1768,' the Nuncio of the fanatical Clement XIII. at Brussels, in a public letter to the catholic Archbishop of Dublin, had the assurance

to

*John Wilford, an agent of the English Catholics at Rome, writes to his correspondent in England, May 9th, 1635: Take heed of meddling with deponibility of princes, for that article will never pass here." Clarendon, State Papers, I. p. 272. Perhaps the ministers of Urban VIII. were satisfied, that their obstinacy would be productive of no real inconvenience to the English Catholics. Sooner or later, Charles I. would have consented to the toleration on conditions agreeable to the court of Rome. The Parliament would not have consented on any conditions.

to assert, that the deposing power of the Pope was defended and maintained by most Catholic nations. + In the year 1790, by desire of Mr Pitt, and for the satisfaction of several members of Parliament, who had heard or read that the Popes claimed a power of deposing princes in certain circumstances, the sense of six eminent Catholic universities was taken upon that question. The answers which were returned were perfectly satisfactory to all persons who were disposed to rely upon declarations of that nature. At the same time, it might be remarked, that none of the universities in the Pope's temporal dominions were consulted, and it can hardly be supposed that the omission was unintentional. A declaration of the university of Bologna, for instance, similar to those which were received from the universities of Paris, Salamanca, Alcala, Valladolid, Louvaine, and Douai, would have had the effect, not indeed of silencing the captious, which is impossible, but at least of diminishing by one the number of their objections. * We suspect that the persons who were employed on that occasion, were aware that an application to one of the Pope's own universities would be disagree able to the Court of Rome, and would probably receive an evasive answer.

The pretensions of the Pope to power and jurisdiction in the dominions of other princes, resemble, in one respect, the pretensions of the House of Stuart to the crown of England, or of the kings of England to the crown of France;-that is to say, their im portance does not greatly depend upon the justice of their foundation, and still less on the confidence with which they are asserted, or the inflexibility with which they are persevered in. Their real weight arises from the approbation with which they are received, and the number and strength of the party which is disposed to Ff2 support

The whole epistle, which the enemies of the Catholics place in the front row of their arguments, may be seen in many pamphlets; and, among others, in Bishop Woodward's Present State of the Church of Ireland, 1787, p. 118.

*The Rev. Thomas le Mesurier, in his Sequel to the Serious Examination into the Roman Catholic Claims (p. 39, 40), strenuously maintains, that if the German, Italian, and Portuguese universities had been consulted, very different answers might have been expect ed. His reasons for that opinion are given at full length. He then proceeds to prove, with admirable consistency, that catholic divines of all countries make no scruple of concealing and misrepresenting the real doctrines of their church, for the purpose of imposing on credulous protestants. We observe that Mr le Mesurier (p. 40.) supposes the university of Douai, as well as that of Louvaine, to have been situated in the dominions of the Emperor Joseph II.

support them. A theologian may consume his leisure hours not unprofitably, in sifting the bulls of Popes, in collecting the opinions of canonists, and in refuting the theses of Jesuits. A statesman will perhaps be more usefully employed in endeavouring to ascertain, from the actual observation of judicious and impartial persons, the quantity of influence which the See of Rome actually maintains, or is likely to maintain in future, over the hundred millions of Christians who hold communion with it, and whom Lord Clarendon, in compliance with popular usage, improperly denominates Catholics. It is worth while to compare Lord Clarendon's opinion respecting the degree of authority which the Pope really possesses, with the representation of that authority which is given in a thousand publications of the present day.

After a pause of thirty or forty years, it has again become fashionable to maintain, that the authority of the Pope over other princes, even in temporal matters, is a fundamental principle of the Roman Catholic religion; and that those Cathofics who deny that authority, probably are insincere, and certainly ought to be considered as contradicting the public and general voice of their Church. It is contended, that a Catholic who is true to his religion, cannot avoid transferring the more • important half of his allegiance from his natural sovereign to a foreign potentate.' * These propositions being proved or assumed, it is inferred, that Catholics are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as other subjects, who yield a more entire and perfect allegiance to their sovereign.

In favour of this doctrine, many great and respectable authorities might be alleged, both of the present time, and of times past. At present, however, we shall be contented with calling the attention of our readers to the books written in favour of toleration by Dissenters and Lowchurch men, from the restoration till the middle of the last century. It was usual for the ene mies of toleration to contend, that the arguments which were adduced in favour of general liberty of conscience, would justify the toleration of papists as well as of presbyterians: and as the toleration of popery was supposed, both by churchmen and dissenters, to be entirely out of the question, the dissenters and their friends were compelled to seek for particular reasons, which might be sufficient to exclude the Catholics, without weakening the claims of the Protestant dissenters. The mere denial of the king's supremacy by the Catholics could not be urged; as that supremacy, in its ancient sense, was not less odious to the Protestant

* Le Mesurier's Serious Examination, &c. p. 20.