take "the oath against transubstantiation and the "saints," prescribed by the statute.

For the present, I shall only place before your eyes, the sentiments of a prelate upon whom the highest dignity in the church of England was conferred, whose memory is revered by all its sincere disciples, and in whose praise you have throughout many pages exerted all the powers of your great eloquence. Professing so solemnly and explicitly as archbishop Laud has done, in these passages, his belief of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and admiring, and venerating, and praising the archbishop as you have done, can you, or any who think as you think, honourably swear the romancatholic doctrine of transubstantiation to be idolatrous ?

66

66

66

"The altar," says archbishop Laud, "is the greatest place of God's residence on earth; yea, greater than the pulpit. For there it is, Hoc est

corpus meum! In the pulpit it is at most, Hoc "est verbum meum. And a greater reverence is "due to the body than to the word of the Lord, "and to the throne where he is usually present, "than to the seat where his word is preached *." -"All sides," he says again t, "agree in the faith "of the church of England, that, in the most blessed "sacrament, the worthy receiver is by faith made

spiritually partaker of the true and real body of "Christ, truly and really. Romanists add a manner "of his presence, which many deny; lutherans

*Speech in the Star-chamber, p. 47.

+ Conference with Fisher, p. 194.

86

"another, which more deny; as for the church of England, nothing is more plain than that she "believes and teaches the true and real presence "of Christ in the sacrament, and the church of "England is protestant too."-In another place, citing the words of Bellarmine, "Conversionem

66

panis esse substantialem, sed arcanum et ineffa"bilem."-" Had the learned cardinal," says Laud, "omitted the word conversionem, and confirmed

only Christ's real presence there after a myste"rious, and indeed ineffable manner, no man had spoken better."

66

X. 6.

1.-The Authority of the Pope.

A

TOWARDS the end of your present chapter, you cite from some roman-catholic writers, and romancatholic documents, several expressions respecting the rank and power of the pope, and represent them equally astonishing and disgusting by their general folly or impiety. But you do not, in a single instance, mention the work or the document from which your citations are made. Supposing them all to be truly represented, still they do not affect the catholic cause; as they are not the language of the catholic church, but expressions of individuals, for whom, whatever may be their rank or character, the roman-catholic church is not answerable.

A chain of roman-catholic writers on papal power might be supposed: On the first link, we might

place the roman-catholic writers, who have immoderately exalted the prerogative of the pope; on the last, we might place those, who have unduly depressed it; the centre link might be considered to represent the canon of the 10th session of the council of Florence, which defined, that "full power was delegated to the bishop of Rome, in "the person of St. Peter, to feed, regulate, and govern the universal church, as expressed in the general councils and holy canons.' THIS IS

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE, and beyond it no roman-catholic is required to believe. Some opinions, represented by the intermediate links on each side of the central link, are allowed. Those, on one side, may be supposed to represent Orsi, and the author of the learned treatise, intitled "Quis "est Petrus ?" who explain the doctrine, expressed in the council of Florence, in a manner very favourable to the papal prerogative; while the intermediate links, on the other side, represent Bossuet, de Marca, and other writers, who construe the canon in a more limited sense. The former have received the appellation of Transalpine divines; the latter, are called Cisalpine. I will endeavour to present you with a short view of their different systems; first premising what the roman-catholic church considers to be of faith upon this important article of her creed.

X. 6.

2.-Universal Doctrine of the Roman-Catholics respecting the Supremacy of the Pope.

It is an article of the roman-catholic faith, that the pope has, by divine right, 1. A supremacy of rank; 2. A supremacy of jurisdiction in the spiritual concerns of the roman-catholic church; and 3. The principal authority in defining articles of faith. In consequence of these prerogatives, the pope holds a rank, splendidly pre-eminent, over the highest dignitaries of the church; has a right to convene councils, and preside over them by himself, or hic legates, and to confirm the election of bishops. Every ecclesiastical cause may be brought to him, as the last resort, by appeal; he 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 assent, all are bound to acquiesce in them. "Rome," they say, in such a case, has spoken, and the cause " is determined." To the pope, in the opinion of all roman-catholics, belongs also a general superintendence of the concerns of the church; a right, when the canons provide no line of action, to direct the proceedings; and, in extraordinary cases, to act in opposition to the canons. In those spiritual concerns, in which, by strict right, his authority is not definitive, he is entitled to the highest respect and deference. Thus far, there is no difference of

opinion among roman-catholics: but here, they divaricate into the Transalpine and Cisalpine opinions. You must be aware, that I use the words Transalpine and Cisalpine in the sense in which they are generally used in these discussions: there certainly are some Transalpine territories in which the Cisalpine opinions, on papal power, prevail; but I am not aware of the existence of any Cisalpine territory, which adopts the Transalpine opinions.

X. 6.

3.—Difference between Transalpine and Cisalpine Doctrines, on the Temporal and Spiritual Power of the Pope.

THE great difference between the Transalpine and Cisalpine divines, on the power of the pope, formerly was, that the Transalpine divines attributed to the pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least, of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good; and, in consequence of it, maintained, that the supreme power of every state was so far subject to the pope, that, when he deemed that the bad conduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of the church, that he should reign no longer, the pope was then authorized, by his divine commission, to deprive him of his sovereignty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegiance; and that even, on ordinary occasions, he might enforce obedience to his spiritual legisla tion and jurisdiction, by civil penalties.-On the other hand, the Cisalpine divines affirmed, that the