Churches, of which those Apóstates, as they are called, are become members. Now if a member of our own Church thinks proper to withdraw from it, and to profess Christianity under a different form, our Church presumes not to interfere, whatever be the motive for withdrawing. The person, so withdrawn, is considered as withdrawn from its authority, which can no longer be extended to him, without infringing the rights of the community, to which he has acceded. But the authority of the Church of Rome is of so peculiar a description, that it neither suffers the exercise of private judgment within its own pale, nor allows its members to remove to any other community, where they might obtain that right. The claim of jurisdiction still follows them, wherever they go; they are not only considered as deserters, but as still liable to punishment, even after their names are erased from the muster-roll of the Romish Church. Nor is this exertion of authority confined tó mere personal desertion, or to individual acts of secession. It embraces whole Societies, and applies no less to those, whose ancestors withdrew from the Church of Rome, than to those, who have withdrawn from it themselves. In the theological Lectures at Maynooth the whole Society of Protestants is denounced as a Society of Schismatics3; and Schismatics in general, though not members of that Church, are declared in those very Lectures to be amenable to that Church. In like manner the Roman Catechism declares of Heretics and Schismatics in general, that they are still "in the power "of the Church, as persons liable to be called to 2 Chap. IX. Note 4. 3. Ib. Note 9

judgment, punished and doomed by anathema to "damnation." Now this declaration is made in a work, which was published by the authority of the Pope himself, and was sanctioned even by a Decree of the Council of Trent'. And since the same tenet (as appears from Note 3. to the preceding Chapter) is maintained at this very day in the College of Maynooth, there can be no necessity for sending to any foreign University to know, whether the Church of Rome considers the members of our Church, as amenable to its jurisdiction on the charge of heresy and schism. Now if such a tenet is maintained in the College of Maynooth when the Romanists are petitioners for political power, we cannot doubt what would be the fate of Protestants, if the Church of Rome should again acquire in these dominions the ascendency, to which it is aspiring. Nor is even the Sovereign of these dominions exempted from that claim of jurisdiction; for he is equally included in the title of heretic and schismatic; he is equally * Chap. IX. Note 2.

5 It is entitled Catechismus Romanus, ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini et Pii V. Pontificis Maximi jussu primum editus. The Decree of the Council of Trent, which authorised the publication of this Catechism, as well as of the Breviary and the Missal, was made at the twenty-fifth Session, and is entitled, De indice librorum, Catechismo, Breviario, et Missali. P. CCXXXIV.

"Mr. Gandolphy, who like Dr. Dromgoole, speaks out, where a prudent man would be silent, says at p. 17, of his second Letter, in reference to the Church of England, "To withstand the torrent, which is now set in against this fabric, it should have "been built upon a rock, which it is not: it must therefore

pass

away, like all establishments raised on a sandy foundation." Yet at p. 16, he thinks there is one chance of our escaping from ruin, "namely, a re-union with the Church of Rome, and a "Concordatum with the Papal See, &c."

included among those, whom the Church of Rome has declared to be worthy of punishment.

But that Church, it seems, is the mother and mistress of all other Churches, and is therefore authorised to interfere in their concerns. The claim to this distinguished title was asserted by the Council of Trent" and in the words of the Trent Profession of Faith, the beneficed clergy of the Church of Rome acknowledge "the holy, Catholic, and "Apostolic Roman Church to be the mother and "mistress of all Churches "." Now that the Church of Rome is the mother of all Churches, is an assertion so palpably false, that we may justly wonder how an infallible Council, could declare it, and still more that the Romish Clergy should swear to it. The mother of all Churches was unquestionably the Church of Jerusalem. On the very day, on which the Apostles were " filled with the Holy Ghost", "— "Peter standing up with the eleven lifted up his "voice and said unto them (the Jews), Ye men of "Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this "known unto you and hearken to my words "." The effect of St. Peter's address to the Jews, then assembled at Jerusalem, is well known. "On the

same day were added unto them about three thou"sand souls 12" " and the Lord added to the Church "daily such as should be saved "." The Church of

7 See Note 1. to Chap. IX.

Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Romanum ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco.

9 The Trent Profession of Faith is made on oath. But on the subject of oaths more will be said in the sequel.

10 Acts ii. 4.

13 Ib. ver. 47.

" Ib. ver. 14.

12 Ib. ver. 41.

Jerusalem is mentioned also on several other occasions in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus at chap. v. 11, great fear came upon all the Church;" chap. viii. 1, "there was a great persecution against the Church "which was at Jerusalem;" chap. xv. 4, "when they "were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders;" &c. &c, Unquestionably therefore the Church of Jerusalem was the mother of all Christian Churches.

With respect to the other part of the title, namely "mistress of all Churches," it shows such ambition and arrogance on the part of the Romish Church, as is sufficient to put all other Churches on their guard against future encroachments. If one Church considers itself as the mistress of another, it will certainly not fail to exercise its authority, whenever it acquires the power. Now in whatever light we view this claim of spiritual dominion, it must equally excite our surprise and our indignation. That either a Prince or a Priest, residing in one country, should claim the right of interfering in the administration of another country, which was perfectly independent as a State, and subject only to its own Prince, is an anomaly in the government of the world, of which the Roman Pontiff affords the sole example. While the Roman Empire existed, and Rome was the seat of government, the Bishop of Rome might properly be considered as the Primate in the Roman Empire. But when the Empire was divided, and one Emperor resided at Rome, another at Constantinople, the independence of the East on the temporal power of the West necessarily required the same independence in spiritual concerns. Hence the Patriarch of Con

stantinople very properly resisted the pretensions which were still continued by the Bishop of Rome, and eventually succeeded in establishing his independence. When the Empire of the West itself was divided into separate kingdoms, independent of all temporal authority emanating from the city of Rome, the ecclesiastical concerns of those kingdoms would have been consistently administered, if no spiritual authority had been permitted to emanate from the same place. But the West of Europe was then enveloped in spiritual darkness, and thus an entrance was afforded for spiritual tyranny. Of this spiritual tyranny we freed ourselves at the Reformation, and we must guard against its entrance a second time. We must not forget, that a universal Bishop is a thing as much to be dreaded, as a universal Monarch. We must not forget, that as universal empire in temporal concerns is subversive of civil liberty, so universal empire in ecclesiastical concerns is subversive of religious liberty.

That the extensive jurisdiction, originally exercised by the Bishop of Rome, arose from no other cause, than his being a Bishop of a City, which was then the Capital of a great empire, is too obvious to require a proof. But when the temporal power of Rome was reduced to a small portion of Italy, it was necessary to find some other basis, on which the Bishop of Rome might rest his pretensions to the former extent of spiritual power. The Pope was represented as the successor of St. Peter; St. Peter was represented as the Chief of the Apostles; hence it was inferred, that the Pope was the Chief over all Bishops; whence it was further concluded, that