« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Oleary's ANSWER.
Locke's supposed principles are fully answered in " Loyalty asserted." With every respect due to so great a man, he has totally mistaken the Catholics creed. He was born at a time when the nice ha/id of the legislature had not drawn the line between their real and imputed principles. And the prejudices of education often tinge a philosopher's imagination with the colours of deception. "That the dominion ** of all things belongs to the faints," was th« doctrine of Wickliff, Huss, and the English regicides in the time of Charles the first: a doctrine condemned by the council of Con^ stance, in thirtieth proposition extracted from Huss's writings.
Mr. Locke, in shutting the gates of toleration against the professors of such a doctrine, fully justifies the emperor Sigismund in putting Huss to death: as that unhappy man not only preached, but practised it. In matters more within the verge of his knowledge, I widely differ from Mr. Locke. When he denies any innate ideas, or the least notion of a God implanted in our souls, independent of the fenses, I prefer the Cartesian philosophers, messieurs de Portroyal, the bishop of Rochester, and several
others others who were of a different opinion. But, when he supposes that," the fame person who ** is head of the church, is the supreme magis** trate in the state; that the pope can frame *' the feigned oracles of Catholic religion, as *' the Musti can frame them for the Turks, by "the direction of the Ottoman emperor; that "he can persuade the members of his church *' to whatever he lists, and enjoin it them, on *' pain of eternal fire," &c. I pity a man misled by popular error.
The universities of Paris, Valentia, Toulouse, Poictiers, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Rheims, Caen, &c. that is to fay, theoracles of the doc-' trine taught in their respective countries, knew their creed better than an English philosopher could teach them. They have stigmatised those assertions obtruded on the public by Mr. Locke; and, in condemnation of Santorellus, vyhp asserted that the pope could depose kings guilty of heresy', qualify his doctrine as "new, false, *' erroneous, contrary to the word of God, cal"culated to bring an odiurn on the fee of "Rome, to impair the supreme civil authority *' that depends on God alone, and to disturb *' the public tranquillity."
Such is the doctrine of Catholics; and had Mr. Locke read history, or been candid enough
to acknowledge it, he would have found the practice of the Catholics, in all ages, conformable to the decision.
** The pope can persuade the members of his "church to what he lists, and enjoin it them, "on pain of eternal fire." Doubtless! He can persuade me to kill my mother, and enjoin it me, on pain of fire. He can persuade me that I eat my victuals with the big toe of my left foot; or that John Locke's mother was a virgin, when she was delivered of the author of the ** Essay on human understanding."
Still the pope could not persuade the English Catholics to give their benefices to Italian incumbents, in the time of Richard the second, nor dissuade a Catholic parliament from introducing the premunire, against provisions obtained at the court of Rome; an evident proof that they knew the distinction between the church and the court. Pope Boniface VIH. could not persuade the. Catholics of his time to believe that he was lord paramount of all the kingdoms of the earth; nor dissuade the king of France from writing the following letter to him: "We would have your Madness know, "that we acknowledge no superior in temporals *J but God alone."
. •-- £ius the Fifth, and Sixtus Quintus, irv publishing their bulls of deposition against queen Elizabeth,* and absolving her subjects from their allegiances could not persuade the Catholics of England, to rife up in arms against their sovereign, though they were superior in numbers, and had room to expect every assistance.
Two proofs which will ever stand upon record, that Catholics never hold difference in religion, as a sufficient plea for dethroning kings; nor a pope's bull a sufficient cause, for withdrawing their allegiance.
In the dark ages, popes were deposed by the council of Constance; and John the twentysecond, who preached up the IVlillenarian doctrine, and held that, souls do not enjoy the clear sight of God until after the resurrection, could not persuade the members of his church to believe him; nor dissuade the university of Paris from censuring, a doctrine, which the head os their church preached from the pulpit at Avignon, and which he himself retracted before a notary public, and several witnesses in his last sickness; nor dissuade a French king from writing this short letter to him, " Retracte, on jete
* Such proceedings are accounted for in Loyalty 4sstrt~ ttt, in the discussion of the deposing power.
"serai ardre,"—retract or I will get you burned. An evident proof that the pope cannot "persuade the members of his church, to "what he lists: nor enjoin it them on pain of *' eternal fire."
For the honour of Locke's memory, let my correspondent throw the fifty-ninth page of hie treatise on toleration into the fire; for it is a jumble of nonsense. He argues from false principles taken up without examination.
All the popes bulls frorrf the time of St. Peter, to the end of ages, cannot make an article of faith for Roman Catholics, without the acceptance* of the Universal Church, and the church has no power over the temporals of kings, much less to command any thing against the laws of Gotj.
Catholics never follow an arbitrary doctrine. The standard is fixed. The boundaries are prescribed, and the pope himself canndt remove them. They consider him as the head pastor of the church. Subordination in every society, requires pre-eminence in its rulers. But his will is not their creed.
As to Mr. Wefley. His reply to me is little
. more than a repetition of his first letter. He
denies "-that he himself, or his followers, were