66 the extreme flexibility, the deluding slipperiness of Roman Catholic theology, I should contend that the sense of the council of Florence had, on these occasions, been fixed by infallible authority; for the Pope may promulgate definitions and formularies of faith to the universal church, and when the general body, or a great majority of her prelates have assented to them, either by formal consent or tacit consent, all are bound to acquiesce in them*." But alas for those who will not be convinced! The bulls of deposition, though always prefaced by a declaration of doctrine concerning the power of the Roman see; though issued with all possible solemnity; though assented to by all the bishops, except, perhaps, a few among the subjects of the monarch so deposed and condemned-these bulls will be found not to be definitions and formularies of faith. They express a doctrine tolerated in the church of Rome, but not her faith: "this (says Mr. Butler) is contained in the canon of the council of Florence. All the doctrine of that canon on the point in question, and nothing but that doctrine, is pro Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 120, 1st ed. pounded by the Roman Catholic church to be believed by the faithful." But will Mr. Butler tell us how the faithful are to ascertain what it is this ALL contains? No, he certainly cannot. His church tolerates the opinion which in this ALL, comprehends the authority to depose princes; nay, the Popes have acted according to that opinion, till the consolidation of the European powers tied their hands; but she also tolerates (the word is here in its place) the opinion of those who strike off from that ALL, no less a part than the Pope's supremacy over the sovereigns of the earth. Little indeed has the inspiration of the Florentine fathers done for you, who, sincerely attached to the Roman Catholic church, are desirous to perform ALL your duty to its head. You might, indeed, have expected that, former Popes having unfortunately increased the obscurity of this important point of your faith by their political claims, those who have filled the Roman see in later times would have put an end to these doubts, by tolerating no longer, but publicly and positively disclaiming, the doctrines of supremacy embraced *Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 124, 1st ed. by their predecessors. Instead of allowing the English and Irish Catholics to apply to Catholic universities for declarations, which these bodies are not authorised to give, the Pope himself might at once have removed the doubt, as to the obedience which he claims from you. Why, then, this silence? why this toleration of an opinion which casts a suspicion upon your loyalty; which if adopted, as you certainly may adopt it so long as it is tolerated, must more than divide your allegiance? I think I can explain the cause of this conduct. If either of the two systems concerning the authority of the Pope were considered by the Roman Catholic church as absolutely false, she could not tolerate it consistently with her claims to infallibility: she must therefore believe them both partially true. This, however, could not take place if she understood the council of Florence (as Mr. Butler contends) in a sense equally distant from the two extreme theological opinions. If both express partially her own sense, that sense must be broad enough to embrace a substantial part of the two; and such is really the case. The Transalpinė* divines regard the grant supposed to have been made by Christ to the Pope, abstractedly from the external circumstances of the Roman church; and, considering that he who has full authority to feed the flock, must also have it to preserve the pasturage safe and unobstructed, assert that the deposition of a heretical prince falls within the divine prerogative of the head of the Roman Catholics. The Cisalpine writers, on the other hand, perceiving that the assertion of this doctrine, and any attempt to put it into practice, would defeat the object of the Pope's authority, by raising political opposition to the church; deny that such a specific power against secular princes, was ever intended by Christ. The Roman see allows these two opinions to be held, because, as it believes that the Pope's power, to be full, must ex * Transalpine and Cisalpine are used here in a very unclassical sense; but as these denominations prevail among Roman Catholic divines, I am in a certain degree compelled to use them. If the reader imagines himself in France, where they were first used, the mistake into which they are apt to lead, will easily be avoided. Transalpine writers are those who scarcely set any bounds to the authority of the Pope; Cisalpine those who, with Bossuet, contend for the privileges of the Gallican church. tend to every act which circumstances may make advantageous to the church; it will not restrain his hands in any possible emergency from checking political opposition to the prosperity of the Roman Catholic religion. But as it may be true that under the circumstances of the civilized world, it will never be expedient to call upon Catholics to refuse their allegiance to an enemy of the Roman Catholic church, the Cisalpine opinions, which at first were strongly opposed by Rome, are at present tolerated. I have hitherto examined the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the Pope's supremacy, not because I conceive it to have any practical effect in this country, but in order to expose the vagueness, obscurity, and doubt in which the declaration of one of your infallible councils-a declaration, too, relating to so important a subject as the divine power of your spiritual head-is involved. The days, however, are no more when the Pope, in virtue of his full power to feed, regulate, and govern you, might endeavour to remove a Protestant king from the throne. The trial to which, as British subjects and Roman Catholics, you are still |