Page images

part of that treatise, which relates to the proceedings of the Council of Constance, in the memorable case of John Huss, on which, because of its peculiar importance the author expatiates largely. This part of the Maynooth Treatise is pecu. liarly well calculated to enable us to ascertain whether the obnoxious doctrine, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is really a tenet of the Romish Church.

It is well known that the proceedings here alluded to, were marked with a gross breach of faith to John Huss, who, in violation of a safe-cunduct granted to him by the Emperor Sigismund, was arrested, imprisoned, and burnt as a heretic. In justification of such atrocious conduct, the Council passed two decrees; by the second of which it explicitly declared that,

“ John Huss, by pertinaciously combating the orthodox faith, rendered himself unworthy of all safe-conduct and privilege, nor was any faith to be kept with him, according to natural, divine, or human, law, to the prejudice of the Catholic faith."

It was certainly a bold undertaking in the Professor to discuss these proceedings, for he could not fail, in such a discussion, either to censure the acts and decrees of a general Council, in which case he would give up the infallibility of his church; or, by his approbation of those acts and decrees, to furnish unequivocal proof that the Church of Roine actually maintains the tenet—that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. He chooses the latter part of the alternative, and professedly enters upon a defence of the Council of Constance. This defence he artfully carries on through a labyrinth of subtlety ; but the author follows him closely in all his turnings and windings, and at length drags bim forth to open day, where truth shines with resplendent lustre. This chace of a Popish doctor by a staunch Protestant, is both interesting and instructive.

But, notwithstanding liis laboured attempt to justify the proceedings of the Council of Constance with regard to John Huss, the Professor denies that those proceedings furnish any ground for concluding that the Church of Rome maintains the obnoxious tenet, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. Yet, in defending the Council, he nevertheless admits it to be a tenet of that church, that according to the law of nature, of God, and of men, faith is not to be kept with heretics, to the prejudice of the Catholic faith; and for this tenet he has the authority of a general Council. On this jesuitical distinction, the author makes the following observations :-

The Church of Rome still inculcates the perfidious principle, that faith is got to be kept with heretics, to the prejudice of the Church. That this principle was both avowed and acted upon by the Council of Constance ; and stands recorded as a principle of the Church, on the decrees of that council; is evident even from the school-book of the Maynooth College : in wliich book it is declared, that general councils are infallible. It is true, this is no evidence that the general principle, so often attributed to the Church of Rome, that it is, in all cases, lawful to violate faith plighted to heretics, is sanctioned by the council of Constance, or indeed by any other general council. But the principle, in its qualified senise, as applicable only to cases where the interests of the Church are concerned, is quite sufficient for all purposes of the present controversy. It is co-extensive with all questions that can arise between Roman Catholics and Protestants, as sach; for all such questions do more or less involve the interests of the Romish Church. It is therefore absolutely conclusive against the proposal, so often made to us, to admit the members of that Church to a participation of power ; for it proves that no engagements into which such persons may enter, by way of security, to a Protestant state, can restrain, or, according to the principles of their religion, ought to restrain them from doing every thing in their power, for the ad. vancement of their own Church, or the overthrow of an beretical establistiment; since, if such engagements were so to restrain them, they would operate “ to the prejudice of the Catholic faith," in præjudicium Catholicæ fidei.

Our readers may now judge of the value of that disclaimer of the obnoxious tenet, that it is lawful to break faith with herelics, which has been made by foreign universities on behalf of the Church of Rome. Alike disclaimer of that tenet is made by the Maynooth Professor ; who, at the same time, by defending the Council of Constance, avows the tenet, as a tenet of his church-that faith is not to be kept with heretics, TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. Surely the spirit of Ignatius Loyola still survives, notwithstanding the dissolution of the college of Jesuits.

The Professor next attempts to vindicate the Council of Conto Vol. I. [Prot. Adv. Oct. 1812.] H

stance against the charge of cruclty and persecution, in the case of Jolin Huss. This he does on the ground that the execution of that heretic, was to be imputed, not to the ecclesiastical, but to the secular power. The former power having only condemned the culprit, and delivered him over to the secular power, to be burnt; while the latter tied him to the stake, and lighted the fir which terminated his life. We will only notice this notable distinction, by referring our Readers to the foliowing ovservations of the author.

This distinction, between the ecclesiastical and secular powers, will scarcely be deemed sufficient to absolve the former, from all responsibility for the execution of a beretic, when it is remembered that the condem, nation of that heretic, by the ecclesiastical power, passes with “ the cers tain knowledge that capital punishment will ensue.” The two powers, as has been already observed, concur and co-operate in the proceedings against heretics. Besides, the ecclesiastical power does not content itself with this condemnation of a heretic. It does not allow him, afrer such condemnation, to make the best of his way, and, if possible, to escape the vengeance of the law. It delivers him over to the secular power, which is, in effect, to deliver him to the executioner. All the subsequent proceedings are matters of course. Can any thing then be more disins genuous than to represent these powers, under such circunistances, as independent on each other {--Can any thing be more pitiful than an attempt, on the part of the ecclesiastical power, to shift the charge of persecution and of cruelty from itself-to the secular power ?

These powers, therefore, instead of being mutually independent, con. çur and co-operate in the punishment of heresy. Each performs its own part in the tragical drama ; and capital punishment, being the certain consequence of condemnation by the ecclesiastical power, the secular power, in punishing, may be justly considered as the agent of the eccle; siastical ; --and the latter is, in effect, the power that inflicts the punishment.

We here reluctantly take our leave of this well-timed and most valuable tract. Agreeably to the pledge which we gave in the Preliminary Address (page 5), we have produced Roman Catholịcs themselves testifying, that they still retain those doctrines which distinguished their Church of old, and on account of which our ancestors quitted their communion. Mr. Plowden, Dr. Troy, and the ingenious Professor of Maynooth, have been called into court,-habetis confitentes reos.--If the Roman Catholic claims are to be considered on the meeting of Parliament we take upon us to say; that it is necessary that every Member, of each House, should carefully peruse the work which we have examined so much at length, and on which we are sure that we have reported truly. If the Parliament is to be dissolved, then it will become the Freeholders, and other Electors, of the United Kingdom to study it, before they give a vote, the consequences of which may be fatal to the Constitution and the liberties of Britons.

Tract by the Bishop of St. David's. From a quarter on which we can safely rely, we have. received intelligence of a pamphlet now in the press, written by the Bishop of St. David's, and addressed, in the form of a letter, to the clergy of his diocese. This little work cannot but prove interesting to all Protestants; and we shall be much mistaken indeed, if it do not wholly explode and extinguish that assumed power of the Keys, as they call it, claimed for the Pope by the church of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, falsely denominated, the Head of the Church; and also if the bishop's publication do not prove the perfect independence, ab initio, of the Christian Church established in Britain. -— We wait, in anxious hope, for a copy of the pamphlet itself ; an account of which we shall lay before our readers, as soon as we possibly can. In the mean time, we trust that we shall not be deemed guilty of a breach of confidence, by giving the title-page, and the introductory advertisement, a place in this Repertory of Protestant Intelligence. " Christ, and not Saini Peter, the Rock of the Christian Church ; and St. Paul, the Founder of the Church in Britain.- À Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's, by the Right Reverend Thomas Burgess, D.D. FR.S. & F.A.S. Bishop of St. David's."-His lordship intorms his Clergy, that " the first object of the following pages is to shew, that the Christian Church was not founded on St. Peter, but on " the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone ;" that is, on ihe predica tions of the Prophets, the testimonies of the Apostles, and the promises of Jesus Christ; that the first Christian Church was the Church of Je. rusalem ; and St. James, the first Christian Bishop ;-that S. James, and not St. Peter, presided at the first Christian Council : that Si., James,

and not St. Peter, by his definitive sentence (syw nepiew), decided the bus siness of the council ;-that St. Paul was the first founder of the Church of Rome; that the Church of Rome was established, as a Christian Society, during St. Paul's first residence at Rome ; and that the first Bishop of Rome was appointed by the joint authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, after St. Paul's return to Rome.

The next object is to shew, that St. Paul preached the Gospel in Britain, and to ascertain, as nearly as possible, the time of the Apostle's journey to Britain, on the authority of Clemens Romanus, Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, and two British records.

St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written before the Apostle's first journey to Rome, as is evident from the Epistle itself.* The dates of the journey and of the epistle will of course influence each other. If St. Paul was sent prisoner to Rome, A. D. 56, the epistle could not bavo been written in the year 57, or any later year. And if the epistle was written A. D. 57, St. Paul could not have been sent prisoner to Rome is 56. But the choice of a date for the epistle must be governed by the jour. ney, and not the time of the journey by the dates assigned to the epistle. To the latter, various dates are assigned.

Historia Eccles. Magdeb. A. D.


Simson .................. A. D. 55.

............... A. D. 57.
Lardner.................. A. D. 58.

Usher.................... A.D. 60. I have exhibited this variety of dates, that the reader may not at once conclude, that St. Paul's first journey to Rome was not A. D. 56, because he finds the date of 57, or 58, or Co, assigned to the Epistle by different writers. These several dates appear to arise from the omission of St. Paul's journey to the West in arranging the chronology of the Apostle's ministry. If St. Paul preached the Gospel in Britain after his release from bis first imprisonment at Rome, and if that imprisonment commenced in the 2d or 3d of Nero, as I hope, in both cases, to prove in the following pages, the Epistle must be dated A. D. 53 or 54,-circiter ullimum Claudii,--as in the Historia Ecclesiastica Magdeburgica, or A. D. 55, as in Simson's Chronicon.”

- # Ch. 1. ver. 10. 13,

« PreviousContinue »