parliament of Paris iffued an arret to establish the independance of the crown as a fundamental law; whilft cardinal du Perron, who owed his elevation to that prince, opposed this decree in an affembly of the states, and got it fuppreffed. The following expreffion, made use of on this occafion by Du Perron, is to be found. in all the historical tracts of thefe times: "Should a prince, fays he, turn Arian, it "would be neceffary to depofe him.”

prevailed amongst all orders of monks, that the pope is a God upon earth, and can dispose of the crowns and lives of fovereigns at his pleasure. In this refpect, we are inferior even to those Tartarian idolaters, who hold the grand Lama to be immortal; greedily gather the contents of his clofe-ftool, dry these precious relics with great care, inclofe them in rich cafes, and kifs them with the warmest devotion. For my part, I confefs, that I had rather, for the good of my country, and the fake of public tranquility, carry those relics conftantly about my neck, than to give my affent to the pope's haying in any cafe whatsoever, an authority over the temporals of kings, or even those of a private perfon.

But

But here I must beg the cardinal's pardon ; for let us for a while adopt his chimerical fuppofition, and fay, that one of our kings having read the Hiftory of the Councils and of the Fathers, and being ftruck with these words, "My Father is greater than me," and taking them in too literal a fenfe, fhould be divided between the council of Nice and that of Conftantinople, and adopt the opinion of Eufebius of Nicomedia: yet I fhould not be the lefs obliged to obey my king, nor think the oath of allegiance I had taken to him lefs binding; and if you, Mr. Cardinal, fhould dare to oppose him, and I was one of your judges, I fhould, without fcruple, declare you guilty of high treafon.

Du Perron carried this difpute much farther; but I fhall cut it very fhort, by faying with every good citizen, that I should not look upon myself *bound to obey Henry IV. because he was king; but because he held the crown by the inconteftible right of birth, and as the juft reward of his virtue and magnanimity.

Permit me then to fay, that every individual is entitled by the fame right to enjoy the inheritance of his father, and that he in no wife deferves

to be deprived of it, or to be fent to the gallows, because he may perhaps be of the opinion of Ratram against Pafchafius Ratberg, or of Berengarius against Scotus.

We are very fenfible that there are many of our tenets which have not been always clearly explained: Jefus Chrift not having expressly told us in what manner the Holy Ghost really proceeds, both the Latin church and the Greek believed, that it proceeded only from the father; but afterwards an article was added to the creed, in which it is faid to proceed from the fon alfo. Now, I defire to know, whether the day after this new article was added, a perfon who might abide by the old creed, would have been deferving of death? And is there less cruelty or injuftice, in punishing at this day, a person who may poffibly think as they did two or three centuries ago ? Or was there any crime in believing in the time of Honorius I. that Christ had not two wills?

It is but very lately, that the belief of the immaculate conception has been established: the Dominicans have not received it as yet. Now will any one tell me the precife point of time, when the Dominicans will begin to deserve

punish

punishment in this world, and in that which is

.to come.

If any one can let us an example for our conduct, it is certainly the Apoftles and the Evangelifts. There was fufficient matter to excite a violent fchifm between St. Peter and St. Paul. The latter in his Epiftles to the Galatians ‡, fays, "That he withstood Peter to the face, "because he was to be blamed; for before that "certain men came from James, he did eat "with the Gentiles: but when they were "come, he withdrew and feparated himself,

fearing them which were of the circumcifion, "infomuch, that Barnabas alfo was carried away "with his diffimulation." “But, adds he, "When I faw that they walked not uprightly,

66

according to the truth of the Gospel, I faid "unto Peter before them all, if thou, being a

Jew, liveft after the manner of Gentiles, and "not as do the Jews, why compelleft thou the "Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Here now was a subject for a violent difpute. The queftion was, whether the new Chriftians.

Chap. ii. v. 11-14.

G 2

fol

followed the manners of the Jews or not. St. Paul at that very time facrificed in the temple. of Jerufalem; and we know that the fifteen first bishops of Jerufalem were circumcifed Jews; and that they obferved the Sabbath, and abstained from the meats forbidden by the Jewish law. Should a bishop of Spain or Portugal at this time be circumcifed, or obferve the Sabbath, he would infallibly burn at an auto-da-fé: and yet this fundamental point did not occafion the leaft animofity between the Apostles, or between the primitive Christians.

If the Evangelifts had refembled our modern writers, what an immenfe field was there for difputation between them. St. Matthew reckons only eight and twenty generations from David to Jefus. St. Luke reckons forty-one ; and thefe generations are abfolutely different. Yet no diffention appears to have arifen between the difciples on account of thefe apparent contradictions, which have been so admirably well reconciled by the fathers of the church; but they still continued in brotherly love, peace, and charity with each other. What more noble lesson can we have of indulgence in our difputes, and of humility in regard to thofe things. which we do not understand?

St.

"