surrender their property, lives, and morality, to be sported with by a Nero or a Heliogabalus; instead of deciding the nice point for themselves, when resistance becomes lawful, they thought it right to be guided by their chief pastor. The Kings and Princes themselves acknowledged this right in the Pope, and frequently applied to him to make use of his indirect, temporal power, as appears in numberless instances. (1) În latter ages, however, since Christendom has been disturbed by a variety of religions, the power of the Pontiff has been generally withdrawn. Princes make war upon each other, at their pleasure, and subjects rebel against their Princes, as their passions dictate, (†) (1) See in Mat. Paris A. D. 1195, the appeal of our King Richard I. to Pope Celestin III., against the Duke of Austria, for having detained him prisoner at Trivallis, and the Pore's sentence of excommunication against the Duke for refusing to do him justice. (2) Every country in which Protestantism was preached, sedition and rebellion, with the total or partial deposition of the lawful Sovereign ensued, not without the active concur. rence of the Preachers themselves. Luther formed a league of Princes and States in Germany against the Emperor, which desolated the Empire for more than a century. His disciples Muncer and Stork, taking advantage of the pretended evange lical liberty, which he taught, at the head of 40,000 Anabaptists, claimed the empire and possession of the world, in qua lity of the meek ones, and enforced their demand with fire and sword, dispossessing Princes and lawful owners, &c. Zuing lius lighted up a similar flame throughout Switzerland, at Geneva, &c. and died fighting, sword in hand, for the Refor mation, which he preached. The United States embracing Protestantism, and renounced their Sovereign, Philip, at the same time. The Calvinists of France, in conformity with the doctrine of their master, namely, that "Princes deprive themselves of their power, when they resist God, and that it is better to spit in their faces than obey them," Dan. vi. 22, as soon as they found themselves strong enough, rose in arms to the great detriment of both parties, as may be gathered from what Sir Edward Sandys, an early and zealous Protestant writes, "The Pope was the common Father, adviser, and conductor of Christians, to reconcile their enmities. and decide their differences." (3) I have to observe, secondly, that the question here, is not about the personal qualities, or conduct of any particular Pope, or of the Popes in general; at the same time, it is proper to state, that in a list of 253 Popes who have successively filled the Chair of St. Peter, only a small comparative number of them have disgraced it, while a great proportion of them have done honour to it, by their virtues and conduct. On this head, I must again quote Addison, who says: "The Pope is generally a man of learning and virtue, against their Sovereigns, and dispossessed them of half their dominions. Knox, Goodman, Buchanan, and the other preachers of Presbyterianism in Scotland, having taught the people, that "Princes may be deposed by their subjects, if they be tyrants against God and his truth," and that "It is blasphemy to say that Kings are to be obeyed, good or bad," disposed them for the perpetration of those riots and violences, including the murder of Cardinal Beaton, and the deposition and captivity of their lawful sovereign, by which Protestantism was established in that country. With respect to England, no sooner was the son of Henry dead, than a Protestant usurper, Lady Jane, was set up, in prejudice of his daughters Mary and Elizabeth, and supported by Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Sandys, Poynet, and every reformer of any note, because she was a Protestant. Finally, it was upon the principles of the Reformation, especially that of each man's explaining the Scripture for himself, and hatred of Popery, that the Grand Rebellion was begun and carried on, till the King was beheaded and the constitution destroyed. Has then the cause of humanity, or that of peace and order, been benefited by the change in question ? (3) Survey of Europe, p. 202. mature in years and experience, who has seldom any vanity or pleasure to gratify at his people's expense, and is neither encumbered with wife and children, or mistress."(1) In the third place, I must remind you, and my other friends, that I have nothing here to do with the doctrine of the Pope's individual infallability, (when pronouncing Ex Cathedra, as the term is, he addresses the whole Church, and delivers the faith of it upon some contested article,) (2), nor would you, in case you were to become a Catho lic, be required to believe in any doctrines, exceptsuch as are held by the whole Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head. But, without entering into this, or any other scholastic question, I shall content myself with observing, that it is impossible for any man of candour and learning, not to concur with a celebrated Protestant author, namely, Causabon, who writes thus: "No one, who is the least versed in Ecclesiastical History, can doubt that God made use of the Holy See, during many ages, to preserve the doctrines of faith!" (3) (1) Remarks on Italy, p. 112. (2) The following is a specimen of Barrow's and Tillotson's chicanery in their Treatise of the Snpremacy. Bellarmin, in working up an argument on the Pope's infallibility, says, hypothetically by way of proving the falsehood of his opponents' doctrine, that "this doctrine would oblige the Church to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be bad, in case the Pope were to err in teaching this." Bell de Rom. Pout. I. iv. c. 5. Hence these writers take occasion to affirm, that Bellarmin positively teaches, that "if the Pope should err, by enjoining vices, or forbidding virtues, the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good and virtues evil!" p. 203. This shame. ful misrepresentation has been taken up by most subsequent Protestant controvertists. (3) Exercit xv. ad Annal. Baron. At length we arrive at the question itself, which is: whether the Bishop of Rome, who by pre-eminence, is called Papa, (Pope or Father of the Faithful,) is, or is not, entitled to a superior rank and jurisdiction, above other Bishops of the Christian Church, so as to be its Spiritual Head here upon earth, and his See the centre of Catholic Unity? All Catholics necessarily hold the affirmative of this question; while the above-mentioned tergiversating Primate denies, that there is a tolerable argument in its favour (1).-Let us begin with consulting the New Testament, in order to see, whether or no the first Pope or Bishop of Rome, St. Peter, was any way superior to the other Apostles.-St. Matthew, in numbering up the Apostles, expressly says of him: THE FIRST, Simon, who is called Peter, Mat. x. 2. In like manner, the other Evangelists, while they class the other Apostles differently, still give the first place to Peter. (2) In fact, as Bossuet observes, (3) "St. Peter was the first to confess his faith in Christ; (4) the first to whom Christ appeared, after his resurrection; (5) the first to preach the belief of this to the people; (6) (1) Tillotson's father was an Anabaptist, and he himself was professedly a Puritan preacher, till the Restoration; so that there is no reason to doubt, whether he ever received either Episcopal Ordination or Baptism. His successor Secker, was also a Dissenter, and his baptism has been called in question, The former, with Bishop Burnet, was called upon to attend Lord Russell at his execution, when they absolutely insistedas a point necessary for salvation, on his disclaiming the lawfulness of resistance in any case whatever. Presently after, the revolution happening, they themselves declared for Lord Russell's principles. (2) Mark, iii. 16. (3) Orat. ad Cler. (6) Acts, ii. 14. Luke, vi. 14. Acts, i. 13. 16, (5) Luke xxiv. 34. prayer the first to convert the Jews; (1) and the first to receive the Gentiles." Again, I would ask, is there no distinction implied, in St. Peter's being called upon by Christ, to declare three several times, that he loved him, and even that he loved him more than his fellow Apostles, and in his being each time charged to feed Christ's lambs, and at length, to feed his sheep also, whom the lambs are used to follow? (2) What else is here signified, but that this Apostle was to act the part of a shepherd, not only with respect to the flock in general, but also with respect to the Pastors themselves? The same is plainly signified, by our Lord's for the faith of his Apostle, in particular, and the charge that he subsequently gave him: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you, as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. Luke, xxii. 32. Is there no mysterious meaning in the circumstance, marked by the Evangelist, of Christ's entering into Simon's ship in preference to that of James and John, in order to teach the people out of it; and in the subsequent miraculous draught of fishes, together with our Lord's prophetic declaration to Simon: Fear not, from henceforth thou shall catch men? Luke, v. 3. 10. But the strongest proof of St. Peter's superior dignity and jurisdiction, consists in that explicit and energetical declaration of our Saviour to him in the quarters of Cesarea Philippi, upon his making that glorious confession of our Lord's Divinity: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Our Lord had mysteriously changed his name, at his first (1) Ibid. x. 47. (2) Acts, xxi. 15. |