cution of its anathemas was committed to the laity, who, in all the zeal of ignorance and phrensy of superstition, were ambitious to signalize themselves in the extirpation of those denounced as heretics; whilst the holy See saw with pleasure, and applauded the atrocities of the Inquisitor Torquemuda, the ravages of the Duke of Alva, and the massacre of the Eve of Saint Bartholomew.

How a policy so unprincipled, and so ferocious in itself, and so directly in opposition to the mild, humane, and rational doctrines of Christianity, could have found its way into the Christian church, would, if those doctrines alone were consulted, appear an enigma impossible to be solved. But ambition is a subtle casuist, and zeal will hoodwink itself. Our blessed Saviour had said His kingdom was not of this world, and that they who took the sword should perish by it; but those who were of the world found it convenient to appropriate his kingdom, and it was not inconsistent that such should wish to do so by the sword. Under the successors of Constantine the Great, instead of that salutary exercise of power which should suppress disturbances impartially, whence-soever they should arise, and confine religious zeal to the exertions of its convincing power alone, court-favour to any sect was the signal of the persecution of every other, and all felt and exerted it by turns. That this should have been the case with the Heathens from principle was to have been expected; that it should have been so with Christians is equally to be lamented and condemned. The idea of enforcing conviction was equally absurd and impious. Conviction may be

concealed, denied, or affirmed; but it cannot be conceded to aught but what is truly felt at the time as just argumentative proof. The characters in which it is impressed are no further of human cognizance than by the outward act; they are a testimony, whose full evidence the Most High has reserved for his own awful tribunal.

Acquisition of temporal power naturally excites the wish to extend and perpetuate it, and an elevated situation is jealous of rivals. Hence the contests between Rome, Constantinople, and Carthage, for a supremacy, for which there is not the least real foundation in Scripture, and which, if there were any other title, could belong only to Jerusalem, as a church established by our Lord himself.

It would be as tedious, as it is disgusting, to pursue the regular strides of the ambition and policy of Rome to assert her supremacy, and at length her infallibility. In her progress, though her power was thwarted by council after council, at length in the council of Trent she prevailed. The zeal for the propagation of her doctrines, and the opposing of error, was indeed always the principle upon which councils assembled; and it is very remarkable, that an opposition to the Popes has, in the later times, generally been followed by a hecatomb of those of the reformed churches as a peaceoffering.

A distinction has been taken between the court of Rome, and the church of Rome; and it is so far just, that, nearly allied as the policy of Rome itself and the doctrines of that church are, they may be considered distinctly, and have frequently been so. Henry the

Eighth certainly did so when he assumed the supremacy, without departing from any of its religious doctrines, unless that supremacy be held as an article of the faith. And there have been, and probably are, numbers, who, though they adhere to what are considered as articles of faith, differ from the court of Rome as to their sentiments of its policy. But there is also a number, and probably a very serious majority, who go hand in hand with Rome in policy as well as faith. Perhaps it would not be too much to say the lower orders of the laity en masse, and many of the lower orders of the priests, whose knowledge may be but one degree above their's, and with whom Rome appears to be every thing. The Gallican church is in some degree an exception, but of this I shall have occasion to speak more particularly hereafter. And notwithstanding this exception, the general position is of importance, as it leads to an adequate idea of the influence of Rome.

In the contest between the Emperors and the Popes, when the assumed spiritual power was deemed valid, and, as to futurity, scarcely distinguished from omnipotence, the cautious and enterprising policy, which long before had in Hildebrand subjugated the churches of France, displayed its full force in the thunder of its anathemas, and the degradation of sovereigns. But when the validity of its assumed powers was questioned, when its authority was weighed in the balance of the Gospel and found wanting, the Gospel was burned, the reformed were burned, crusades against the reformed were proclaimed, inquisitions were instituted; all that the rage of illegal power, trembling

for itself, could suggest, was put in action. Had that power been legal, would it have acted so? Most assuredly not. There is that in a consciousness of truth and rectitude which feels its own security, and fears no scrutiny. It is firm, but seldom, if ever, violent.

This violence, though it impeded, was not suffered by Divine Providence to suppress, the Reformation; and though the decrees established by it have not latterly been put in act, they are not repealed. Hence therefore it is necessary to recur to them, to see what is still of force, though not in use, because they constitute a part of that policy against which it is necessary the Protestant should ever be on his guard till it is so no more. Neither is it less necessary to the Protestant to bear in mind the power which is claimed and has been exerted by the Popes, as to their decrees, and the extent of their influence, since it cannot be ascertained that it will not again be resorted to, and with an effect dangerous to his religion and his liberties.

As some of these, though often referred to, are but little known in general, they are here given as worthy of particular attention, for the marks they bear of the temper of the church that issued them at the time, and of that which is not inconsistent with its policy perhaps at any time.

The fourth council of Lateran was assembled A. D. 1215. One principal object thereof was to suppress the Albigenses; a sect, which, opposing the doctrines of infant baptism, the Mass, prayers for the dead, worship of the cross, was, says Millot, "accused, though without proof, (as the first Christians were by the Jews,

and afterwards the Jews by the Christians,) either of sacrificing children, or committing the most abominable excesses at their nocturnal assemblies." These calumnies have not been suffered to drop. The temper of the calumniators will however be pretty evident from the following Canons of that council*:

CANON III." Let the secular powers of every rank whatsoever be advised and persuaded, or, if necessary, compelled by ecelesiastical censure, as they wish to be held and accounted of the number of the faithful, to make oath publicly, that in defence of the faith, that they will sincerely and with all their power labour to expel all such as are noted by the church as

* Moneantur autem et inducantur, et si necesse fuerit, censurâ ecclesiasticâ co.npellantur seculares potestates cujuscunque officii, etiam sicut reputari cupiunt et haberi fideles, ita pro defensione fidei præstent publicé juramentum, quod de terris, suæ jurisdic-. tioni subjectis, universos hæreticos ab ecclesiâ denotatos bonâ fide pro viribus exterminare studeant, ita quod a modo quandocunque quis fuerit in potestatem sive spiritualem, sive temporalem assumptus, hoc teneatur capitulum firmare..

Si veró dominus spiritualis requisitus et monitus ab ecclesiâ. · terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac hæreticâ fœditate, per metropolitanum et comprovinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur. Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos, et terram exponat Catholicis occupandam, qui eam, exterminatis hæreticis, sine ullâ contradictione possideant, et in fidei puritate conservent, salvo jure dominii principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum præstet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat; eâdem nihilominus lege servatâ circa eos, qui non habent dominos principales.-Concil. Lat. 4. Can. 4. Vide Carranza Summa Can. Ed. Lugduni, 1601.

p. 423.