Upon the whole, the power of the King in ecclesiastical matters among us, is expressed in this article, under those reserves, and with that moderation, that no just scruple can lye against it; and it is that which all kings, even of the Roman communion, do assume, and in some places with a much more unlimited authority. The methods of managing it may differ a little; yet the power is the same, and is built upon the same foundations.' As an instance of the different methods of managing the same power, we may adduce the practice of England and of France in the appointment of bishops. In England, bishops are nominally elected by the chapters of their respective cathedrals; whereas in France, they were, and indeed still are, nominally appointed by the Pope. In both countries, however, the real appointment is in the hands of the Sovereign. In England, the chapter may be compelled, by legal process, to elect the person recommended by the King. In France, the Pope, indeed, could not be cast in a pramunire; but the consequence of his refusal to grant bulls to the person recommended by the king, was an actual schism, which lasted till the Pope thought proper to yield to the king's will. It must not be denied, that the ecclesiastical supremacy of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth might, with no great exaggeration, be called the better moiety of their sovereignty.' In those reigns, all was swallowed up in the Crown, temporals and spirituals, soul, body, estates, and conscience. '* That system, however, has long been departed from; and we fervently hope that it will never return. It originally arose from a laxity of religious principle, and a servile veneration for the royal authority, which prevailed in England during the greater part of the sixteenth century, to a greater extent than in any other period of our history. For more than a century past, the king of Great Britain, with magnificent ecclesiastical titles, has had less power in ecclesiastical matters, and less influence over the clergy of the established religion, than most European princes, either Catholic or Protestant. His influence over the clergy is founded almost entirely on the power which he enjoys of nominating to the bishoprics, and to many other of the greater benefices. This power is enjoyed by several Catholic princes; for instance, by the kings of France before the revolution, in a much more ample degree than by the king of Great Britain. It may be observed, that no prince has ever permanently rejected the authority of the Pope, without making other consi derable Lord Molesworth's Account of Denmark, p. 166, ed. 1738. derable innovations in the constitution of the church. When the breach has not been rendered irreparable by the institution of new articles of faith, it has always been closed again, after a certain time, with the full consent of all parties. Since it has been discovered, that Protestant princes are as far from being absolute masters of the consciences of their subjects as Catholic princes, few princes of either persuasion have felt much solicitude respecting a power which our author considers as the better moiety of their sovereignty. It is amusing to consider the extreme anxiety of some subjects, to preserve entire to their sovereign an authority of which the prince himself is totally regardless. 2 6 Whenever the tide of public opinion has run in favour of absolute monarchy, it has been usual among Protestants to represent the Roman Catholic religion as unfavourable to the power of princes. Sir Simon Harcourt, for instance, in his speech in defence of Sacheverell, stigmatizes resistance to princes as a doctrine of the Church of Rome. ' * On the other hand, when the love of liberty is prevalent among Protestants, popery and slavery are represented as twin sisters. In our opinion, both representations are extravagant; and if the Grand Turk is really disposed to embrace Christianity, it is not very material, as far as his authority is concerned, whether he adopts the Catholic or the Protestant persuasion. In the opinion of Lord Clarendon, the authority of the Pope is the principal obstacle to the reconciliation of the Catholic and Protestant churches, so as to enable all good Christians 'to pray for and with one another.' Protestants will not consent to return to their ancient subjection to the Pope; and therefore the first article of the treaty of union must be, that the Papal jurisdiction be abolished. Lord Clarendon observes, that the Popes are aware of this determination on the part of the Protestants, and therefore exert all their influence to prevent such a treaty from being even taken into consideration. If this impediment *State Trials, V. p. 713. See also Tillotson's Letter to Lord Russel, quoted in the same trial, p. 737. Your Lordship's opinion [of the lawfulness of resisting the prince for the preservation of the ⚫ constitution] is contrary to the declared doctrine of all Protestant • Churches; and though some particular persons have taught otherwise, yet they have been contradicted herein,' and condemned for ⚫ it, by the generality of Protestants. I beg your Lordship to consider, how it will agree with an avowed asserting of the Protestant religion, to go contrary to the general doctrine of Protestants The letter is dated July 20th, 1683. pediment were removed, the noble author appears to believe that the peace of the Christian church might easily be restored. For neither of the churches believe, that there is no doctrine in either which may not be better explained, and that there are not many other particulars, both in discipline and practice, which may not be altered or departed from, for the satisfaction of such a considerable body of good christians as would thereby be reconciled to one congregation, and one communion. And this would easily be done, if sovereign princes would vindicate their own authority and supreme jurisdiction; and, by national councils, take care for the settling all matters pertaining to the church in their own dominions, which, by correspondence with the like national councils under the neighbouring princes will, without any difficulty, sever what is of the essence of religion from what may in the practice of it be permitted,' &c. p. 680. * An ignorant reader would hardly suppose, that the writer of these words, which are so full of moderation and conciliation, had contributed, in a very eminent degree, perhaps in a greater degree than any other man who ever existed, to the perpetua tion of the bitterest animosities among Christians, who were subjects of the same prince, and who acknowledged that their differences of opinion did not extend to articles of faith, and the essentials of religion. The real fact is, that Lord Clarendon, notwithstanding his animosity against the Pope, had no dislike to the Roman Catholic religion in general; and perhaps was more desirous of weakening than of strengthening the Protestant interest, as it is called, in the general affairs of Europe. Such feelings naturally arise out of the principles of the Laudian school, in which he had been educated. It is one of the leading tenets of that school, that those points in which the Church of England agrees with the Church of Rome, and differs from the foreign Protestant Churches, are more essential to true Christianity, than those in which all Protestant Churches, including the Church of England, are united against the Church of Rome. In other words, a Roman Catholic is, upon the whole, a better Christian than a Presbyterian. We cannot give a stronger example of Lord Clarendon's Laudianism, than the manner in which he mentions the great Gustavus Adolphus in the following sentence. The blackest action, and surely the least apostolical, that unhappy Pope (Urban VIII.) was guilty of, was, that when the victoricus King of Sweden, of whom the world had scarce ever heard *G g before, VOL. XIX. No. 38. * See Lord Clarendon's observations on the unhappy policy of • making concessions to the Dissenters,' in the continuation of his Life, p. 148. Fol. before, had covered all Germany with blood and slaughter, and by fire and sword wrought a greater devastation, almost to desolation, than hath ever been produced amongst Christians by a war between them: This successor of St Peter, whose office and peculiar obligation they pretend is to root out all heretics, and by right or wrong to remove all obstructions which hinder the growth or improvement of Catholic religion, refused to give the Emperor and Catholic party any assistance in money, of which he was known to have abundance, and the other to want nothing else. '* p. 555. When it is considered, how little success has attended every attempt to unite any two Protestant sects, we cannot accede to Lord Clarendon's supposition, that the downfal of the Pope would contribute materially to the reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics, who differ in opinion upon so many points of the highest importance. The correspondence between Wake and Dupin, part of which is printed at the end of Maclaine's translation of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, sufficiently demonstrates, that the most lukewarm Catholics will never consent to abandon all the distinguishing tenets of their religion, however strongly they may be inclined to break with the court of Rome. The mention of national councils in a passage which we have lately quoted, and a paragraph in the concluding chapter of the book, entitled on the margin, National Councils the best Conservators of Christian Religion, prove that Lord Clarendon entertained a higher opinion of the prudence and moderation of those assemblies, than experience appears to justify. The synod of Dordrecht, the national synods of the French Protestants, and the factious convocations in the reign of Queen Anne, show how little such meetings contribute to the peace either of the Church or of the State. National councils of the established religion seem to be entirely laid aside in every Christian country, in which the power of calling them, or, at least, of preventing them from being held, is possessed by the Sovereign. Catholic princes, in particular, have generally found the Pope to be more tractable and manageable than a synod composed of their own subjects. Whatever *The Popes have seldom been particularly well inclined to give assistance to their friends in hard cash. Like the infernal deities in Eschylus, Aaßív åμcívous ricìv î madiva. There is, indeed, a kind of paper money, called Indulgences, which was formerly in great repute, and of which the Popes, to do them justice, have never been niggardly. The credit of this currency, however, was so much shaken by a kind of Bullion Committee, of which one Martin Luther was chairman, that there has been very little demand for it during the two last centuries. Whatever ill effect may arise from the conflict of ecclesiasti cal and secular jurisdiction, in countries in which the authority of the Pope is recognized by law, we are unable to perceive that any considerable inconvenience results from that authority, in countries where it has no legal existence,-except the tendency which it undoubtedly has, to prevent the Catholic inhabitants of Protestant countries from adopting the religion of the State. Perhaps it may be said, that the power of the Pope is dangerous to Protestant sovereigns, from its tendency to excite revolt among his Catholic subjects. This objection deserves to be seriously considered. Nor No person can be weak and timorous enough to suppose, that the Pope will ever excite Catholics to rebel against a Protestant sovereign, unless he is of opinion, that there is a considerable probability that the rebellion will be crowned with success. will such Catholics, admitting them to be as devoted to the court of Rome as the Jesuits were, listen to the voice of their chief pastor, unless they are convinced that they are likely to derive advantage from following his advice. In every country where the Catholics know that they form so small and inconsiderable a body, as to render resistance to the government perfectly hopeless, it is both their interest and their inclination to recommend themselves to the State, and to their fellow-citizens, by their peaceable and loyal demeanour. As we do not ascribe any merit to this conduct in such circumstances, perhaps we may be allowed to say, that the English Catholics have given little or no cause of complaint to the government for the last two hundred years. The most lion-hearted Popes know very well how to assume the meekness of lambs on proper occasions. On the other hand, in countries where the Catholics form so large and powerful a body, as to afford the prospect of successful resistance to the government, we are willing to admit, that the Pope will not be remiss in instigating them to try the experiment. This admission may appear at first sight to be fatal to our cause; but we strenuously maintain, that, in such circum-" stances, the conduct of all sects always has been, and always will. be, nearly the same. We except those sects, the members of which, from any cause, happen to be destitute of personal courage. The patience of the Greek Christians, for instance, under the yoke of the Mahometans, must not be ascribed to the purity of their religious principles, but to the levity and cowardice which have been inherent in them for so many ages. In every country which has an established religion, the honours and advantages which arise from the establishment, are the natural property of the strongest sect, which, it must be remem Gg 2 bered, |