extend her legislation beyond the scriptural degrees; in both respects agreeing with the primitive Church, and thus standing forth as the only representative in modern Christendom of the ancient practice both in strictness and in forbearance. It must be a matter of deep satisfaction to Archdeacon Hare, that he has done his part towards throwing a doubt upon scriptural authority, vilifying Catholic consent, execrating the judgment of our Church, and debasing her from that high and Catholic ground which upon this doctrine she has taken. The Archdeacon's course is not a new one: he is merely aiding our modern philosophical divines; and a strange lesson they are teaching. To set at nought, as far as man dare, all intellectual or moral restraint; to regard the voice of the Church Universal as nothing when compared with individual opinion; to speak with contempt of venerable Fathers, and the distinguished luminaries of later times, his superiors in every way, both as to learning, piety, and power of mind; and at the same time to idolize his own individual opinion and judgment; and all this, for the purpose of propping up a most unrighteous cause, calamitous in its present and future consequences, and utterly subversive of the peace of Christian society,—for the purpose of aiding the selfish desires of a few interested men, who have cloked their design under the false plea of relieving the poor;-such is the enterprise of Archdeacon Hare, such his True Remedy for the evils of the age! and such is but one instance of the spirit which is largely at work, to bring sorrow and further distraction into this Church and nation! Since writing the above, Mr. Forster's Sermon, which is noticed in the heading of our article, has appeared. It is a great satisfaction to find that his energetic vindication of Christian morality is in entire accordance with our sentiments. Mr. Forster begins with laying down two first prin'ciples of all scriptural interpretation; the one, that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture; the other, that Scripture 'cannot contradict itself.' He applies these two commonplaces,' as he calls them, to the subject in question and in so doing, asserts at length the orthodox doctrine, at which Archdeacon Hare cavilled, that our Lord came to establish the Law and the Prophets, and consequently the Law of marriage; and then proceeds to show that the Council of Jerusalem did confirm the ancient law of marriage. Speaking of Topvela, as mentioned at that Council, he says, To the law of incest it very specially applies, as is proved by its being the term employed by S. Paul, in speaking of the 'man who had taken his father's wife. Now, by the introduction ' of this one word, necessarily inclusive of the whole table of prohibited degrees, as it stands here as the sole represent'ative of them all, the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem most 'clearly affirms, and adopts the 18th chapter of Leviticus, with ' its whole table of prohibitions, as the declaration of the moral ' law of God, binding on all Christian people.' Mr. Forster asserts the doctrine of the Universal Church, and of our own and energetically asserts the feeling (so shamefully misrepresented) of England, Scotland, and Ireland, on this subject. In addition to this, there is one fact, peculiarly valuable as coming from such authority; that 'the Mahometan 'table of prohibited degrees, recited in the 4th chapter of the 'Koran, entitled "Women," is either literally or virtually 'identical with the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and that it closes 'with a prohibition, in the most solemn terms, of the very 'marriage now in question. "It is forbidden-or it is wickedness-for a man to unite himself with two sisters." And he justly adds, What Christian state can venture to let down the pure morality of the Gospel below even the lax and licentious morality of Mahomet and the Koran?' His notes are very valuable, as vindicating S. Basil, putting the importance of Bishop Taylor's casuistry in its true light, giving the genuine interpretation to the 18th chapter of Leviticus, and exposing the absurd and arrogant assumptions and statements of Archdeacon Hare. Mr. Forster throughout points to the only safe and true course; that is, adhesion to the Law and the Testimony, to Christ, to His Apostles, and to His Church, in defiance of that philosophy and vain deceit, which is now spoiling and poisoning the minds of many, so as utterly to pervert their notions of true liberty, and pure Christianity. 185 ART. VI.-1. The Royal Supremacy viewed in reference to the two Spiritual Powers of Order and Jurisdiction. By T. W. ALLIES, M.A. Rector of Launton. London: Pickering. 1850. 2. Two Letters on the present Position of the High Church Party in the Church of England. By the Rev. WILLIAM MASKELL, Vicar of S. Mary Church. Second Edition. London: Pickering. 1850. THESE pamphlets suggest a threefold consideration. 1. As to the facts they contain. 2. As to the tone of the writers. 3. As to the deductions insinuated as a consequence of the facts. It is obvious that the first may be true, and yet the two last highly objectionable. Assuming that the first are so, one might still venture the philosophie caution: Ἔστι δ', ἐν τούτῳ παραλογίσασθαι· Εἰ γὰρ δικαίως ἐπαθέν τι, δικαίως πέπονθεν, ἀλλ ̓ ἴσως οὐχ ὑπὸ σοῦ. (Arist. Rhet. ii. 23. 3.) But it is just possible there may be a defect in the facts themselves, at least in the colouring which has been given them and still more in the deductions which have been made from them. We will begin with the Supremacy question.-And here the first reflection that arrests one is, that it should have been viewed so absolutely and irrespectively, as if it had been the one thing excogitated, cherished, and maintained by the English Church, and not the result of a powerful recoil from the opposite extreme. We will be bold to say that the facts were far otherwise, and that the true clue to the Supremacy lies in the fearful and much to be lamented, because not altogether unnecessary, oath. 'I, A. B. do swear that I do from my heart ' abhor, detest, and abjure that damnable doctrine and position, 'that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any ' authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by 'their subjects, or any other whatsoever.' It is unquestionable that the Papal power had overborne the Regale to a most incredible, though not the less unjustifiable, extent: and it is only wonderful that the recoil, when it did come, should have been comparatively so mild, that human nature so outraged, should have been content with so qualified a retaliation. The power of the Pope had been one of progressive, but stupendous increase; it had gradually supplanted every constituted authority to be met with in the Christian world. It certainly may have heard appeals previously, but it was not 1 before the Sardican Council, A. D. 315, that it had acquired a recognised right to do so. Transmarine appeals are expressly forbidden in the African Code authorized A. D. 418—19: and even about the middle of the 9th century, says Döllinger, (a Roman Catholic historian,) no bishop could appeal to Rome against the will of his metropolitan.' It would have been almost heresy, some centuries later, to have asserted that it was above a general Council; nor was it before Gregory VII. really, that it formally claimed the power of deposing kings. Earlier Popes, it was afterwards argued, did not depose, simply because they could not as if it had not been made a chief argument that later Popes could, because they did." It is notorious that the deposing theory followed, and did not precede the practice; else why should Bellarmine have been content to quote Augustinus Triumphus, Alvarius Pelagius, Hugo de S. Victor, Alexander Alensis, and others of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, as his earliest authorities? Precedents they were that suggested principles, and that played the part of a versatile interpreter to the inspired Word. Will it be believed that the words, Thou art Peter,' &c., and the like, have been made to support the following assumptions? 6 The first opinion is, that the Supreme Pontiff has jure divino the most absolute power over the whole world, as well in Ecclesiastical as in temporal matters. Hostiensis indeed goes still further, for he teaches that, through the coming of Christ, all dominion of infidel princes has been transferred to the Church, and resides in the Supreme Pontiff, as Vicar of the supreme and true King, Christ: and that consequently the Pontiff can in his own right bestow kingdoms of the unfaithful upon the faithful, whom he will.' 4 It is fair to add that the above is considered by Bellarmine a somewhat extreme view: but the opinion which the Cardinal himself holds, and in which, he says, all Catholics concur, is practically the same. 'It does not,' says Barrow, 'in effect and practical consideration, any wise differ from the former: but is only in words devised to shun envy, and veil the impu'dence of the other assertion.' And indeed so Bellarmine thinks, at all events he has laboured to show that the principal supporters of the foregoing opinion agreed with him in the main; that is, they held that the power of the Pope as regards temporal matters was indirect," and mediate; not, however, that it was the less supreme. Reconcilable or not, therefore, the 2 Bellarm. De Rom. Pont. vol. vii. p. 904 c. 1 Period iii. c. iv. § 5, p. 180, Eng. Tr. principles, the practical conclusions of the two schools were wholly the same. Emperors and kings derived their authority from the Pope, which he might recal when there appeared occasion, of which he was the sole arbiter. A few examples will show that the practice did not fall short of the theory. Hildebrand deposed Henry IV. in the following terms, after an impassioned apostrophe to the Apostle S. Peter: Relying on this, for the honour and defence of thy Church, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and by thy power and authority, I forbid to King Henry, son of Henry the Emperor, who through an unexampled pride has rebelled against thy holy Church, the government of the whole realm of Germany and Italy. I absolve all Christians from the oaths which they have taken, or may take to him; and I decree that no one shall obey him as king: for it is fitting that he who has endeavoured to diminish the honour of thy Church, should himself lose that honour which he seems to have.' 1 Paschal II. not only reiterated a like sentence against the same monarch, but armed his own son against him, by declaring him freed from the oath which he had taken to his father, on condition that he would use his kingly power in supporting the Church; Germany beheld therefore,' says a recent biographer, 'the dreadful scene of warfare between a parent and his child.' 2 These fruits certainly speak volumes for the theory: if indeed, as our Lord says, a tree may be known by its fruits.' To proceed. Innocent IV. not only deposed Frederick II., and absolved his subjects from the oaths of allegiance they had taken to him, but by his apostolical authority firmly prohibited that any man should thenceforth obey or regard him as king or emperor; concluding, that whoever should afterwards yield advice, aid, or favour to him as emperor or king, should immediately lie under the ban of excommunication. " It is too true that these instances might be multiplied into a catalogue that would swell pages: and many there are, more aggravated, if possible, than those which have been mentioned. We shall have occasion to revert to a few more in the sequel. Now we put the question to rational beings, whether it was not perfectly certain that human nature would eventually recoil from a doctrine so monstrous: and we put it to Christians, whether it was to be expected that Divine Providence should permit the pure truths of His Gospel to be so egregiously perverted without a special judgment; and we put it to those, who consider it so disgraceful, that our communion should have acquiesced to the extent she has, in the claims of the temporal power over her spiritual regimen, whether it was not infinitely 1 Bowden's Life of Gregory VII. vol. ii. p. 109. 3 Barrow, as before. |