THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS FAIRLY STATED. (In continuation from p. 414.)

VOL. LVII. p. 107, art. 1.-This article rightly ftates, that the Church has no power to frame new Articles of Faith. But it does not clearly affert, that the definitions of Councils fhould be founded on the Scriptures. It therefore feems to fuppofe that the Faithful are obliged to an interior affent by the decifions of a Council in matters of faith, though they be founded only on uncertain tradition.

2. The Papifts certainly believe an infallibility to be in their Church. Though they differ in opinion, whether it is poffeffed by the Pope alone, or the Pope afhifted by a Council. But in what Bull of any Pope, or Decree of a Council confirmed by a Pope, is this exception of matters of fact, difcipline, fpeculation, and civil policy, to be found? And by what argument is it proved, that the fucceeding Governors of the Church are equally infallible with the Apofiles?

3. Though no Catholic can fubmit to a decree of the Pope, or a Council, depofing his rightful King, confiftently with his duty as a Chriftian; yet we know, by many examples in Hiftory, that Papifts in general readily obey fuch decrees, and are therefore dangerous fubjects to a prince whom they efteem heretical. It is a poor recommendation of the Church of Rome to acknowledge that its governors have frequently miftaken their power in fo capital a point as the life and dominions of a King, and iffued decrees which a Chriftian ought by no means to obey.

4. If there is no Catholic principle encouraging the depofition of heretical principles, what do the advocates of the Romith Religion fay of thofe Popes who have depoted Kings, and preached up crufades against pious Chriftians, whom they filed Heretics?

5. It has never yet been proved, that the Bishop of Rome is the fucceffor of St. Peter. Nor does it appear from Scripture that St. Peter exercifed any authority over the rest of the Apoftles, The Church of Rome, therefore, may be fitly ftyled a corrupt part of the Chriftian Church, which has, with great arrogance, affumed to itfelf the name of Catholic, whilft to many confiderable focieties of Chriftians difown her authority.

6. Several Popes have iffued out de crees, as if they were infallible, and have refufed to obey the decifions of Councils. We do not believe any man, or body of men, to be infallible fince the time of the Apoftles; and it is un fortunate for the claim of the Church of Rome, that her advocates do not agree where her pretended infallibility is lodged. But whilft all the Papifts own the univerfal fupremacy of the Pope, numbers of them will always be ready to liften to him as infallible in every command. On this account, Popery has a direct tendency to make men bad fubjects, as long as this claim is not formally given up by the Pope himself.

7. However vain and null the Pope's fentence of depofition may be in itself, Hiftory fhews that many Papifts have rifen against their natural Princes, in blind obedience to the Pope. Should, therefore, the Bishop enjoy now as much power as did fome of his predeceffors, Princes ftyled Heretical could have little dependence upon the loyalty of their Popish fubjects.

8. It would undoubtedly be unjuft to punish one man for the erroneous doctrines of another, when he does not abet them. But the Papifts are strongly linked together, and bigoted in their

eriors.

9. If one Council has condemned the king-killing doctrine, this will not juftify the Popes, who have excited unjust wars against Princes, in which they may be flain in battle. It wants farther proof, therefore, than a bare affertion, that this doctrine is univerfally admit ted, in the Romish Church, to be im• pious and execrable. The decree or page fhould have been quoted, as well as the council.

10. Perfonal Mifdemeanors feem too foft an expreflion to be applied to fuch enormous facts as the Powder Plot and Irish Malacre. If fuch attempts are excited by the perfecuting zeal in pro pagating their opinions, for which Popery has been always remarkable; and if fuch geal has been encouraged and applauded by the Governors of their Church; they muft caft a ftain upon the body of the Papifts; and all of that religion, who de not exprefly and fin cerely difclaim them, may be judged abettors. The pretence of exaggeration in our account of thefe facts is of little weight, till they prove in what particulars they are mif-related, and fhew that

thole

thofe circumftances make a material difference in point of morality. The maffacre of St. Bartholomew, and the cruelties of the Inquifition, are additi onal proofs that Popery may be juftly efteemed, notwithstanding all palliations, a bloody religion. The comparifon of the Papifts, therefore, with the eleven Apoftles, is improper and indecent, as the rest of the Apostles held no principles that tended to encourage the treachery of Judas.

11. If Papifts are fo well convinced that the Pope has no real power to licenfe perjury and excite massacres, why do they continue to pay fuch blind fubmiffion to his decrees, and acknowledge his authority, when he has fo often done fuch things as they pretend to

condemn ?

12. The Roman Church has a poor claim to fimplicity and godly fincerity, when the Popes have fo often violated their promifes, and stimulated others to do the fame. The cafe of John Hufs, burnt by the Council of Conftance, in violation of the safe-conduct granted by the Emperor, is a strong proof of the cruelty of Popery, and how little reliance ought to be put upon the faith of Papifts. The Church of Rome contracts fome ftain if its governors have frequently encouraged breach of faith, though it may not have exprefly taught the doctrines of equivocation and mental refervation. J. W.

(To be concluded in our next.) Mr. URBAN,

May 22.

IN confequence of a curfory perufal of

the Notes to the new edition of "The Spectator," I trouble you with the following obfervations.

Vol. II. p. 16. Contains many fenfible obfervations, made by the Spectator, on Duelling; the rationale of which (if it has any) I conceive to be conftantly miftaken by thofe who have profeflediy written on the fubject.

Ibid. p. 248. The first letter in this paper humouroufly expofes the custom of laying wagers. But the Spectator's obfervations on duelling lead me to fuggeft, for confideration, Whether the cuftom thould be altogether difcouraged, as it appears to be, if not a wife, yet a harmleis way of ending many difputes, which might otherwife perhaps receive a more ferious determination.

Vol. III. p. 362, marked Z. the Editor thinks, was more probably written by Mr. Henry Martyn than by E Bud

**** muujram 405

gell. But in vol. IV. p. 148, he acknowledges he does not know who wrote the papers marked Z; and in p. 293 he fuggefts, whether different writers did not ufe the fame fignature? and thinks, that three of the papers fo figned were by Mr. Carey, of New College, Oxford, or Mr. Parker, of Merton College. And in vol. VI. p. 132, there is another guefs, that that paper (which is alfo marked Z) was written by Pope or Parnell. And afterwards, vol. VI. p. 306, the paper No 467, marked Z, is allowed to be written by Hughes.

The Editor having, in various notes, repeated, that Sir Richard Steele marked the papers wholly composed by himfelf with an R, and thofe with a T which he tranfcribed from the letterbox, or from other communications by his correfpondents, fays, in a note, vol. IV. p. 34 (which paper is marked T), "This is one of the papers where the fignature T cannot be supposed to fignify that it was merely or little more than tranfcribed." But this fuppofition is contradicted by a note in vol. V. p. 178, where he feems to think that T was put indifcriminately both to the communications of Steele's unknown correfpondents and to original papers by himfelf, or on hints dropped in the letter-box.

Let us next examine the Editor's new interpretation of the letters C, L, I, O, ufed to denote Mr. Addifon's papers, and which Sir Rich. Steele (vol. VII. p. 336) fays, as compofing the name of the Mule Clio, be diftinguifhed by one of the letters in that word. In the face of this

affertion the Editor leads the reader through the first feven volumes of "The Spectator" with afligning many whimfical interpretations of the letters in queftion, of which the following is a fpecimen :

N° 70. C. Dated, as the fignature seems

to denote, from Chelfea.(See alfo Numbers 1, 18, 245, 251.)

281. L. Dated, as the fignature feems to denote, from his houte in London. (See alfo Numbers 86, 87, 156, 267, 275, 335)

four letters agree perfectly with Steele's af*The many tubimpical interpretations of the fertion, who never affated that thele fignatures were chofen on purpoić to make up the word CTO.-The many whinical interpretations are but five in all; and if B. S. does not approve of them, where is the harm? EDIT.

N° 393. I. [June 1.] Dated, it is fuppofed, from Iflington; where he had a fummer, refidence. (See N° 371.) [N.B. No authority is given for this affertion; and the Editor ftates, that the pa pers dated 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, and 31 of July follow ing, and others in Auguft, were written at Chelfea. And it is not probable that Addison had two country refidences, at the fame rime, within fo fhort a difiance of London.] 418. O. Written, it feems, at his Of. fice, or at Oxford. (See alfo Numbers 409, 416, 419, 420.)

Thefe, it is acknowledged, are thrown out by the Editor as mere guelles: but I fubmit to the candid reader, what probability there was that the papers on the pleafures of imagination fhould be compofed at an office, amidst his engagements in bufinefs and the interruptions of promifcuous company; or, indeed, that his papers were constantly written in one place.

After all, we are told (vol. VII. p. 336), that the new explication of C, L, I, O, is given only as a conjecture, which the Editor will chearfully relinquith for any other more probable! Had this obfervation been fubjoined to the firft number, it certainly would have been more in its place than after making the reader travel through seven volumes of guefies t.

Vol. III. p. 333. The Spectator fpeaks of an optical glafs that enables the party to view any one without directing the glafs immediately fronting the perfon looked at, which takes off from the rudeness of appearing to ftare at them. The Editor, in a note, fays, "The optical glafs here mentioned is very common and very contemptible." Qu. How does the epithet contemptible apply ‡ ?

Vol. IV. p. 61. The converfation which the Spectator ftates to have had with a young hand fome proftitute,

feems to indicate a difpofition in the writer of that paper nearly resembling Dr. Johnson's tafte for fuch fort of Areet colloquia, as recorded by Sir John Hawkins in his Life of that extraordi

nary man.

Ibid. p. 157. Peter Motteux was a near relation of Timothy Motteux, who was a cane merchant, and kept a fhop in Leadenhall-street, opposite the East India Houfe, and died in or about 1745. Timothy having taken fome offence a gainst three of the then East India Directors, left a legacy for the benefit of the Company's alms-houses, when the three perfons in queftion were (as he phrafed it in his will) dead, buried, and almoft rotten. The will of this charitable man went into chancery; and the perfons obnoxious to the teftator being proved to be then all DEAD, the Court directed the payment of the legacy, without requiring any evidence as to the laft condition on which the bequest was made.

Ibid. p. 313. The Editor alledges, that Mr. Addifon never received more than his office fees; and cites a fhort correfpondence with Major Dunbar to prove it. (See Johnfon's Life of Mr. Addifon.) But this, if I remember right, only related to a fingle tranfaction, whilst he was fecretary in Ireland, and does not flew what his subsequent conduct was when he obtained higher employs.

Vol. V. p. 12. In a note the Editor gives the conclufion of the last letter in No 324, as recollected by a friend, which materially contradicts the conclufion as given by the Spectator in N° 328. By this he feems to confider his friend's recollection as fuperior to what the Spectator has adopted, which is there faid to be fupplied from a copy taken at the time §. Which ought to have the preference in the reader's elimation cannot require much skill in evidence to determine. But as the N° 328 is omitted in all the editions of the Spc&tator fince the folio (prior to the prefent), the publick are much in debted to the Editor for having reftored it.

work. E.