CHAP. IX.

PROOF, THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME NOT ONLY CARRIES ITS AUTHORITY FURTHER, THAN IS NECESSARY FOR ITS OWN PRESERVATION, BUT THAT ITS AUTHORITY IS EXERCISED IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT IN ITS OWN MEMBERS, AND TO TRAMPLE ON THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHER CHURCHES.

Ir appears from the preceding Chapter, that the

T

welfare of a religious Society, in matters of faith requires nothing more, than that they, who violate its Articles, be made to withdraw from its communion. And it is equally apparent, that a Society, which has not the power of removing determined contraveners has not the power, which is necessary for its own preservation. On these principles, of which the truth is indisputable, the Church of England exercises its authority in controversies of faith. Every Society has the undoubted right, to take such measures, as are requisite for its own welfare, provided they interfere not with the rights of other Societies. But if laws are enacted, or even if principles are admitted, which its own welfare does not require, there will be an unnecessary and therefore an unjust, diminution of natural right. Whenever

M

men unite themselves in a Society, whether civil or religious, a portion of that freedom, which they would otherwise possess, is unavoidably surrendered, in exchange for the benefits, which they derive from communion with that Society. To a certain extent therefore the will of the individual must yield to the will of the body. But, as that Society is the best constituted, in which the general welfare is promoted with the smallest share of individual sacrifice, the latter should never be required, if the former can be promoted without it. Now as the objects of a religious Society are faith and worship, and every man has a natural right to worship God according to his conscience, the surrender of this right can never be deemed necessary to the purpose, for which a religious Society is formed. If an individual member of such a Society can no longer conscientiously partake in its faith, or worship, the welfare of the Society is so far from requiring his continuance in that communion, that this very continuance would serve only to destroy its harmony, Consequently there is no pretence for compelling a man to remain a member of a religious Society against his will. And with respect to the consequences of such compulsion, it is obvious, that conscience would thereby be enslaved, and the right of private judgment altogether extinguished. As long as we are at liberty to withdraw from a religious Society, whenever we disapprove of its principles, we possess the right of exercising private judgment in matters of faith and worship. Indeed the very act of withdrawing from the Society is an act, in which that right is exercised.

But if the Church of England thus allows the right of private judgment, this right is absolutely refused by the Church of Rome. For the latter not only requires obedience from all who continue in its communion, but prohibits a departure from that communion. And this prohibition is carried so far, that the Church of Rome claims the power of exercising spiritual jurisdiction over those, who have ceased to be its members. Allegiance to the Church is considered in the same light, as allegiance to the State; and apostates from the religion of Rome are regarded as rebels against their lawful Sovereign. The Council of Trent has formally declared, that the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches'; whence they who have deserted its standard, and have gone over to other Churches, are still declared amenable to the Church of Rome. Accordingly we find in the Roman Catechism, published by order of Pius V, that heretics and schismatics, though no longer members of the Church of Rome, are still "in the power of the "Church, as persons to be called by it to judgment, "punished, and doomed by anathema to damnation". And this claim, thus officially made in the Roman Catechism, is urged at this very day in the theological lectures, which are given in the College of Maynooth. For in the treatise De Ecclesiá Christi,

'Ecclesia Romana, quæ omnium ecclesiarum mater est et magistra, &c. P. LIII. See also the Trent Confession of Faith, quoted in Note 21. to Chap. VI.

* Hæretici vero et schismatici, qui ab Ecclesiâ desciverunt, &c. Non negandum tamen quin in Ecclesiæ potestate sint, ut qui ab eâ in judicium vocentur, puniantur, et anathemate dammentur. Catechismus Romanus, p. 78. ed. 1587.

which contains the sum and substance of those Lectures, it is positively asserted, that "the Church "retains its jurisdiction over all Apostates, Heretics, "and Schismatics, though they no longer belong to "its body." And the following is assigned as a reason, why the Church of Rome claims jurisdiction over those, who have ceased to be its members; namely," that a General has the right of "inflicting severer punishments on those deserters "whose names have been erased from the muster"roll 4." Now when a man has ceased to be member of a Society, whether it is religious, civil, or military, it is difficult to comprehend on what principle of justice or equity he can be considered as still amenable to the laws of that Society. Nor is it true, that military punishment can be inflicted on those, whose names are erased from the regimental list. When deserters are punished, they are punished as being still members of the Society which inflicts the punishment: they are punished for a violation of the laws, which they have sworn to obey, and from which, without the consent of their superiors, they have no right to withdraw. But a religious Society has no analogy in this respect to one, that is purely military. If the members of a military Society were at liberty to withdraw from it whenever they pleased, the very object, for which an army is

1

3 Ecclesia suam retinet jurisdictionem in omnes Apostatas, Hæreticos, et Schismaticos, quanquam ad illus corpus non jam pertineant. P. 394.

* Immediately after the words quoted in the preceding Note is added, Quemadmodum dux militiæ jus habet severiores pœnas decernendi adversus militem transfugam, qui ex albo militiæ fuisset erasus.

collected, would at once be defeated. The necessity of the case itself therefore prevents the exercise of that liberty. But no such necessity operates in a religious Society, from which every member has a right to withdraw, as soon as his conscience forbids him to partake of its faith and worship. The spiritual tyranny of those, who govern the Church of Rome, may find indeed support in such comparisons as that, which has been just stated: but the Church of Christ was founded for a very different purpose, than that of extending the power and influence of those, who direct it. But whether the reasoning of the Church of Rome on this subject be valid, or futile, whether the jurisdiction thus claimed be well, or ill-defended, it is sufficient to know that the claim is made, and made by those very persons, whose sentiments we are especially concerned to ascertain.

It may be urged indeed in answer to this claim. of extended jurisdiction, that when a member of the Church of Rome is once become a Protestant, he has nothing further to apprehend from the jurisdiction of that Church. He may despise the appellations of Apostate and Heretic, and smile at the threat of punishment, which can no longer reach him. Now this argument implies, that the conversion takes place in a State, where Protestantism is protected, a protection not afforded in every State, where the Church of Rome claims jurisdiction... But let us take for granted, that the State is both able and willing to protect those, who for conscience' sake change their religion; let us consider the situation of the Romanists resident in Great Britain and Ireland, and thus we shall be enabled to appre