tures, that St. Peter, or any of the apostles, were commissioned to depose kings and rulers of nations, or to absolve their subjects from their oaths of allegiance. On the contrary, I find St. Peter saying; "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governours, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well."* As the dispensing power is not to be found in the bible, it must be looked for among the traditions of the Romish church, which the Roman catholicks say, are of the same authority as the written word of God. If these traditions have ever been committed to paper, like the Mishna, I should like to see something, which would give even a semblance of authority to the bishop of Rome, for the exercise of the dispensing power. Pope Innocent IV. declared that," he held the place of Jesus Christ on earth.” I shudder while I copy this blasphemy. Pope Pius V. declared, as we have seen, that he was "constituted prince over all nations and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and build." The bull of Paul III. contains the same declaration, and quotes the prophet Jeremiah, for his authority. In looking at this authority, we find it is JEHOVAH, speaking to the house of Israel!!! Is America included in this sweeping power of destruction? America was known when these bulls were issued. Does the pope, then, arrogate this authority over the United States? Can he change our rulers who have been freely elected by a majority of our citizens? Can be dissolve our allegiance to the government of our choice? Ridiculous! If Roman catholicks think so, American protestants do not. And as we do not choose to have our civil rights invaded, by any power, secular or spiritual, we

* 1 Peter, i. 13, 14. + Jerem. xviii. 7-1k.

should be glad to know, when, and by what pope, "the power of dispensing with oaths," was officially and publickly relinquished? The popes of old, no doubt, deemed the exercise of this dispensing power a right appertaining to the Roman see; but if any pope, subsequent to those mentioned, has relinquished it, what becomes of the papal infallibility in the reign of those popes, and of the vaunted unity of principles and action in the Roman church? They cannot, surely, under these circumstances, be the same now, as they were at the reformation. If they are, then according to the doctrine of the Romish church, the pope has the power of turning Mr. Monroe out of the presidential chair, as a heretick, and of placing a creature of his own in his place! Is this the opinion of Roman catholicks? It certainly is not the opinion of protestants.

In the holy warfare against hereticks, every protestant is a heretick in their opinion, every Roman catholick prelate is bound by his consecration oath, to aid and support the pope. In this oath is the following passage: Hæreticos, schismaticos et rebelles eidem domino nostro vel successoribus prædictis pro esse persequar et impugnabo. 'Hereticks, schismaticks, and rebels to our said Lord [the pope] or his aforesaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose."*

66

The oath at length, in the original Latin, as well as a translation, will be found in Barrow. I will copy the latter, for the information of those who have not an opportunity of consulting the works of that author.

I, N. elect of the church of N. from henceforward will be faithful, and obedient to St. Peter the apostle, and to the holy Roman church, and to our lord, the lord N. pope N. and to his successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent, or do any

* Pontif. Rom. Antwerp, Anno 1626, p. 59, and p. 86. Apud Barrow's Works, i. p. 553.

thing that may lose life or member, or that their persons may be seized, or hands anywise laid upon them, or any injuries offered to them under any pretence whatever. The counsel which they shall entrust me withal, by themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly reveal to any, to their prejudice. I will help them to defend and keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving my order, against all men. The legate of the apostolick see, going and coming, I will honourably treat and help in his necessities. The rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman church, of our lord the pope, and his aforesaid successors, I will endeavour to preserve, defend, increase, and advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in which shall be plotted against our said lord, and the said Roman church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honour, state, or power; and if I shall know any such thing to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hinder it to my power; and as soon as I can, will signify it to our said lord, or to some other by whom it may come to his knowledge. The rules of the holy fathers, the apostolick decrees, ordinances or disposals, reservations, provisions and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause them to be observed by others. Hereticks, schismaticks, and rebels to our said lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose. I will come to a council when I am called, unless I be hindered by a canonical impediment. I will by myself in person visit the threshold of the apostles every three years; and give an account to our lord and his aforesaid successors, of all my pastoral office, and of all things any wise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline of my clergy and people, and lastly to the salvation of souls committed to my trust; and will in like manner humbly receive and diligently execute the apostolick commands.

And if I be detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all the things aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a member of my chapter, or some other in ecclesiastical dignity, or else having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy [of the diocese] by some other secular or regular priest of approved integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things abovementioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawful proofs, to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the cardinal proponent of the holy Roman church, in the congregation of the sacred council. The possessions be. longing to my table I will neither sell nor give away, nor mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, nor any wise alienate, no, not even with the consent of the chapter of my church, without consulting the Roman pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will thereby incur the penalties contained in a cer tain constitution put forth about this matter. So help me God, and the holy gospels of God."

In conclusion, I would ask the jurists this question, merely for information, without deciding upon it myself: Whether a citizen of the United States can take this oath, and promise this obedience, to the pope, he being a foreign temporal prince, consistently with the allegiance he owes to the government of his own country?

ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH.

REVIEW

OF DR. BANCROFT'S SERMONS.

(Continued from page 289.) HAVING in our last number considered the account which Dr. Bancroft gives of the primitive church, we proceed in the present to offer some remarks to our readers on a subject of much greater difficulty, the questions relative to the sufficiency of the scrip

tures as our rule of life, and the right of private judgment in matters of religion.

"The reformers," says Dr. B., "in their dispute with the Romish church, took the most tenable ground, which they maintained with all the force of argument, and all the power of truth, viz. the sufficiency of scripture as a rule of faith and practice, and the right of private judgment.' But no sooner had they separated a large portion of the Christian community from the catholick communion, than they, in direct violation of their own principles, assumed the spiritual domination over their protestant brethren from which they themselves revolted, under the Roman pontiff. By their own authority they established formularies as the test of orthodoxy, and they denied the Christianity of all who dissented from them." Sermon xiii. p. 193. To this charge of inconsistency, the reformers, were they able to answer for themselves, would plead, we think, not guilty. Dr. B. assumes as usual, that his definition of terms is the only one of which they are susceptible, and consequently the same which was adopted by the reformers. We think they understood the terms "sufficiency of the scriptures and right of private judgment," in a very different sense from that in which they are understood by those who now assume the title of "liberal Christians."

And first as to the sufficiency of the scriptures; to know what the reformers taught on this point, it is necessary that we should know the exact state of the controversy between them and the church of Rome. "The controversy between us and the hereticks," says cardinal Bellarmine, "turns on two points. The first which we assert is that all necessary doctrine whether of faith or morals is not contained in the scriptures; and therefore, secondly, that beside the wKITTEN word of God, the UNWRITTEN Word of God, that is, the divine and apostolick traditions, are

requisite. By divine traditions are meant certain instructions given by Christ to his apostles, but no where found in the new testament; by apostolick traditions, whatever was insti tuted by the apostles, under the direc tion of the Holy Spirit, but not recorded in their epistles." Bellarm de verbo Dei non scripto, lib. iv. cap. 2, 3. The Romanists therefore, while they assented to the general proposition that the word of God is the only rule of faith and morals, comprehended under this term, certain oral instructions given by our Saviour to his apostles on mat ters of faith necessary to salvation, and which are not expressly declared in the scriptures. In opposition to this, the English reformers maintained that "holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Article vi. entitled "of the sufficiency of the holy scriptures for salvation.”— The same sentiment is expressed in the first homily entitled "a fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge of holy scripture." "Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable, than the knowledge of holy scripture, forasmuch as in it is contained God's true word, setting forth his glory, and also man's duty. And there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is, or may be, drawn out of that fountain and well of truth." So again, "Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books of the new and old testa ments, and not run to the stinking puddles of men's traditions, devised by men's imagination, for our justification and salvation. For in holy scripture is fully contained what we ought to do, and what to eschew, what to believe, what to love, and what to look for at God's hands at length." The cate

chism ascribed to Nowell, which appears to have been sanctioned by the bishops, and set forth by publick authority in 1570, has the following question and answer. "Q Dost thou then affirm that all things necessary to godliness and salvation are contained in the written word of God? A. Yea: for it were a point of intolerable ungodliness and madness, to think either that God had left an imperfect doctrine, or that man were able to make that perfect which God left imperfect." It will be evident to our readers that all these expressions were levelled against the Romish doctrine of "an unwritten word of God," and that when the reformers maintained the sufficiency of the scriptures, it was in opposition to the assertion that "all necessary doctrine whether of faith or morals is not expressly contained in the written word," "in scripturis non contineri expresse totam doctrinam necessariam, sive de fide, sive de moribus." Bellarm. ut sup. As all the continental reformers agreed on this point with those of England, it is unnecessary to say more in order to prove what they meant when they spoke of the sufficiency of the scriptures.

66

But," says Dr. Bancroft, "no sooner had they separated a large portion of the Christian community from the catholick communion," &c. Separated from the catholick communion! God forbid. Though Dr. B., and his obsequious committee, who talk of "the liberty of protestants, for the enjoyment of which they separated from the catholick church," may be willing to concede to our Roman brethren that they constitute the church catholick, we are by no means willing to make such a concession. We are members, and we trust sound members, of the catholick or universal church, having been made so when we were born into it by baptism; and we are not willing to be deprived of our birthright, because a portion, and a corrupted portion of this catholick church arrogantly claims

so exclusive an epithet. But to let this pass as only one instance of that loose and inaccurate mode of expres sion which pervades the whole book, let us proceed to consider the charge itself.

"In direct violation of their own principles," says Dr. B., "they (the reformers) assumed the spiritual domination over their protestant brethren, from which they themselves revolted under the Roman pontiff " To support this broad assertion he ought to have shown that the reformers required as articles of faith necessary to salvation what cannot be proved from the scriptures. He assumes this; but assumption is one thing and proof another. We shall confine our remarks at present to the conduct of the English reformers ; both because they are those with which we are more immediately concerned, and because we wish as much as possible to narrow the ground of argument.

"By their own authority," continues Dr. B.," they established formularies as the test of orthodoxy." In the first place what did they establish? The creeds for the laity, the thirty-nine articles for the clergy, and the book of common prayer and administration of the sacraments for both. With regard to the creeds, the reformers indeed affirmed that they "ought thoroughly to be received and believed:" Why? On their own authority? No: they say no such thing. In fact they never had an idea of requiring a belief in them on their own authority. They expressly disclaim it; for they add as a reason why they ought to be so received, "for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture." Art. viii. So again in the twentieth article. "It is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's words written, neither may it so expound one place of scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the

same; so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." Is there then no difference between declaring, with the reformers, in what sense they understood the scriptures, and declaring, with the church of Rome, that all things necessary to salvation are not contained in the scriptures? Is there no difference between presenting to the laity a summary of the chief articles of Christian faith, drawn from the scriptures, and the imposition of articles of faith which are confessedly no where to be found in the scriptures? If there be a difference, Dr. B.'s charge of inconsistency is wholly without foundation; but if there be no difference, we beg leave to ask whether he does not involve himself in his own charge? Does not Dr. B. every time he goes into the pulpit, attemp' to maintain and prove from the scriptures what he considers to be Christian doctrine? and does he not thereby "in direct violation of his own principles assume the spiritual domination over his protestant brethren?" No, say the committee of Dr. B.'s parish who have published his "doctrinal discourses from the pulpit are now seldom heard with satisfaction, or even with patience, if the preacher proposes to do more than to ad the inquiries of his hearers. They will hardly suffer him to prescribe a creed for their adoption, or to denounce them for the independent exercise of their Christian liberty. Every man, indeed, who has much reputation to preserve as a divine and a scholar, finds it necessary to be cautious in stating opinions to be adopted by others, which cannot be defended by the soundest expositions of scripture, and the fairest deductions of enlightened reason, Introd. p. iii. iv. We were of opinion that there was something more than a regard to reputation, which ought to operate upon the mind of a preacher of the gospel. We verily thought with St. Paul, that it is re

sermons,

But

quired in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man's judgment." We considered the office of one who is required not to "handle the word of God deceitfully," as one which involved a most awful responsibility, a responsi bility to that great Being, who will come to demand of him an account of his ministry. But the committee have set us right on this subject. The cler gyman is no longer an ambassador of Christ, proclaiming the terms of salvation to sinful men, but he is a lecturer to a set of criticks, who are constantly on the watch to detect an imposition on their understanding, and proclaiming to the preacher, "Take care, sir, what you advance, for you are speaking at the peril of your reputation, as a divine and a scholar." to let this pass, it is sufficiently amus ing to hear of "the independent exercise of their Christian liberty," and "the soundest expositions of scripture, and the fairest deductions of enlightened reason." What does all this prove, but that Dr. Bancroft is an expert angler, and has caught them upon his hook, while they thought they were running off with a fly? Dr. Bancroft's creed, in all its essential particulars, is their creed. And it is so with all congregations which have not written formularies. If men are to unite together at all, it must be under a minister who expounds the scriptures in some specifick manner. The laity have no liberty in the case, excepting that of retiring from the preaching of a minister who does not suit them; and even that they have not if the town in which they live is not large enough to support two, or if the ministers happen to agree in sentiment. Where then, we should be glad to know, is all this boasted liberty of the laity? As for the ministers, they have liberty enough. They pray what they please, and they preach what they please; and provid