is no article of the Roman Catholick faith that the pope is infallible." The infallibility of the pope may not be an article of faith, although the church of Rome may believe it to be matter of fact. If I mistake not, the Roman Catholicks themselves are not agreed, where the infallibility rests; whether in the pope, according to Cardinal Bellarmine and others; or in a general council as asserted by Stapleton, and the French clergy, or in the whole body of the church, with the pope at its head, as stated by others. I confess myself to be greatly puzzled upon this subject. I cannot bring my mind to conceive, how any number of fallibles can make one infallible. I think the pope stands the best chance for infallibility, as he, alone, it is said, is the successor of St. Peter, and "God's vicar upon earth." But even Peter erred, and denied his Master. Bellarmine, however, assures us, for our consolation, that if the apostle erred, the pope cannot, for he says, this absurdity would follow: "Si autem papa erraret præcipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare ;"* and more could not be said of the Redeemer. The writer has attempted to draw an analogy between the dispensing power exercised by the popes, and the American colonies dissolving their allegiance to Great Britain. But to prove the cases analogous, he must show, that the great body of the American people, the original source of supreme authority, had not an inherent right to es tablish a form of government for themselves; and that the pope of of Rome had a right to interfere in the political concerns of other nations than his own, and to dissolve the allegiance of the people even contrary to their own will! I trust, we shall never acknowledge such an analogy in the United States. "has The writer, in his concluding paragraph, says, that the pope no right, directly or indirectly, to interfere in our concerns, and did he attempt it, every human being would smile at his folly, and every Roman Catholick in the States would feel it to be his duty before God, by the laws of nature, by the rights of nations, by his solemn oath, and by the principles of his religion, to take up arms to defend his country against the unjust and wicked aggressions of the pope, with as much alacrity as against the aggressions of any other unprincipled invader." This is as it should be. This is what the United States expects of all her citizens. And if I am not misinformed, there are symptoms, in more of our cities than one, of the Roman Catholicks preferring the rights and liberty of conscience, to the trammels of popery, and the rescripts of the court of Rome. But there are still some things which I cannot reconcile. I cannot serve two masters.† If I owe allegiance to the pope, who is a sovereign prince, I cannot, at the same time, own allegiance to the United States. The Roman pontifical states, that, when the pope is crowned, the triple crown is put upon his head with these words: "Accipe thyaram tribus coronis ornatum: Et scias te esse patrem principum et *De Rom. Pont. 1. 4. c. 5. + Matt. vi. 24. 12 GOSPEL ADVOCATE, VOL. III. regum, rectorem orbis, in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi." Receive this diadem adorned with three crowns: and know yourself to be father of princes and kings, governour of the world, and vicar upon earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ.* Under this appointment, we find Pope Pius V. asserting that "he was constituted prince over all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruinate, plant, and build." And we have seen above, that Popes Innocent and Gregory have said, "We, who, according to the plenitude of our power, have a right to dispense above law or right." But how all this agrees with the word of God, I am at a loss to disCover: "For the kingdom is JEHOVAH's, and he is the Governour among the nations." If the pope of Rome be, really, the governour of the world, then the rulers of every nation should be subject to his will. If he be a good man, so much the better for the people, as he will be obeyed with the greater pleasure; but if he be wicked, he must, according to a papal canon, still be obeyed: "Let a pope be so bad, as by his negligence and maleadministration to carry with him innumerable people to hell, yet no mortal man whatever must presume here to reprove his faults; because, he being to judge all men, is himself to be judged of no man, except he be caught swerving from the faith."§ And why? Because the council of Lateran has said to the pope, "All power is given to thee in heaven and in earth!!!" Therefore, no one must presume to examine into the conduct of the popes. Whatever they do must be right. The Roman Catholick bishops, at their consecration, take the oath which I published at length in my former number, in which are the following passages : "The rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman church, of our lord the pope, and his aforesaid successors, I will endeavour to preserve, defend, increase, and advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in which shall be plotted against our said lord, and the said Roman church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons, right, honour, state, or power; and if I shall know any such thing be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hinder it to my power. Hereticks, schismaticks, and rebels to our said lord or his aforesaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose." Protestants are called hereticks and schismaticks, therefore, protestants are to be persecuted and opposed. And such has been the fact wherever the power could be exercised. We must now inquire, how the Roman Catholick bishops explain their obedience to the pope. Dr. Milner, a popish bishop now living in England, must be our authority on this subject. In a charge delivered to his clergy, he says: "The [Roman] Catholick church in particular, that most illustrious and perfect of all societies, as being Leslie's works, i. p. 491. + Barrow's works, i. p. 540. Camd. Hist. Anno 1520. Psalm xxii. 28. Si papa suæ, &c. Grat. dist. 40. cap. 6. apud Barrow's works, i. p. 566. * Pontif. Rom. Antwerp. anno 1626. pp. 59, 86. apud Barrow's works, i. p. 553. the work of infinite wisdom; that society, which like the ocean spreads its arms round the whole earth, and which, unlike all human institutions, is neither to be dissolved by external violence, nor internal decay; the church, I say, owes all her beauty and stability to the exact discipline and subordination which her divine Founder has established in her, and in which he has marshalled her, 'like an army drawn up in battle array." Cant. vi. 9.* As in a disciplined army the soldiers obey their officers, and these other officers of superiour rank, who themselves are subject to a commander in chief: so in the [Roman] Catholick church extending, as it does, from the rising to the setting sun, the faithful of all nations are guided by their pastors, who in their turns are submissive to the prelates, whilst the whole body is subordinate to one supreme pastor, whose seat is the rallying point and centre of them all. The Catholick, acknowledging in the church a living, speaking authority, as the guide of his faith, must submit his private opinions to its decisions, otherwise he ceases to be a Catholick." Having seen what popery is, and what it requires, I shall now turn to the oath of naturalization, and see what is required by the United States. The person admitted to citizenship solemnly swears, that he will support the constitution of the United States, and that he doth, absolutely and entirely, renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject."‡ 66 It appears to me, but I may be mistaken, that the Romish bishops are subjects, owing and owning allegiance to the pope of Rome, because their oath of consecration contains this passage: Papatum Romanum et regalia sancti Petri adjutor eis meo ordine, contra omnem hominem." I will help them [the pope and his successors] to defend and keep the Roman papacy, and the royalties of St. Peter, saving my order, against all men." It is worthy of remark, that in the oath extant in the Gregorian Decretals, there is not a word about the royalties of St. Peter. The original words were regulas sanctorum patrum, which have subsequently been changed into regalia sancti Petri, i. e. The rules of the holy fathers, into The royalties of Saint Peter. Now, according to my view of the case, no citizen of the United States can help the pope to defend his sovereignty, as a secular prince. Here I shall close my remarks, and leave the subject with my readers, to reconcile these apparent conflicting duties and obligations, if they can. ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH. Since writing the foregoing, another number of the Roman Catholick Miscellany has been received, in which the remarks on my *It is in ver. 10, of our translation, and is rendered "terrible as an army with banners." + See Le Mesurier's sermons at the Bampton Lecture, 1807, pp. 148, 149. See Laws of the U. S. Gregor. Decret. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 6. See Barrow's works, i. p. 554. last number are continued, and more are promised. The writer says: "Our friend in the south not having vouchsafed to give us a reference to the decree of Pope Boniface VIII., which, he says, is found in the canon law, we are not able to examine the topick as we would wish." Now this comes with an ill grace from a writer, who, in near eight columns of remarks, states a multitude of circumstances as matter of history, without giving, in a single instance, any reference to his authority. But he is in errour, as it respects myself. If he will refer again to my last number, he will find that, at the end of the quotations, I say, "the above extracts are taken from Barrow's works, tom. i. p. 540-543. fol. ed. Lond. 1741." The writer will there find this quotation and reference: "Subesse Romano pontifici omni humanæ creaturæ declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. Extrav. com. lib. i. tit. 8. cap. i. We declare, say, define, pronounce it to be of necessity to salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." TO THE EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE. YOUR correspondent Philo Medicus in recommending to physicians to set apart the proceeds of their Sunday's practice for the purposes of religious charities, appears to me to have overlooked some considerations, which bear upon the subject; and which, to my mind, materially vary the question of duty. In the first place, to separate the income arising from the practice of one day in the week, would be attended with more inconvenience than your correspondent seems to suppose. The physician, among us, does not receive each day the earnings of that day; nor does he (unfortunately for him) ever receive any thing near to the full amount to which his accounts would show him to be entitled. Deductions from the accustomed fee are often made in consequence of the inability of his patients; and much that is charged is never collected. Hence to keep a separate account of the actual receipts of his Sunday practice would probably cause a physician more trouble than is now occasioned by all his accounts. This, however, is a consideration of minor importance. There are others in my view, of much greater consequence. The necessity of attending the sick upon the Sabbath, is such as to place beyond all doubt the duty of the physician in regard to it. There needs, therefore, no peculiar appropriation of his fees to render sacred the labours of the day. It were a departure from duty, very far from being a meritorious act, if he should neglect his patients to attend publick worship. By the pious physician, this necessity is by no means regarded as a privilege. He looks upon it as one of the greatest evils to which the profession is liable; and he makes his engagements to obviate it as far as the nature of things will permit. There are many cases of disease which do not require a daily attendance. These it is the custom of physicians generally, so far as my acquaintance extends, to omit visiting on the Sabbath. This intention is in a great measure frustrated in regard to new cases of disease, because it is never in the power of a physician to determine that his attendance is not necessary, until he has made his visit. All new calls must therefore receive immediate attention; and their number is probably greater, on an average, on Sunday, than on any other day in the week. It is not pretended that there is not the same reason for the physician's receiving a compensation from his patient for his attendance on this as well as on other days: and since the attendance costs him the same labour and fatigue, and even greater self-denial, and the deprivation of privileges which others enjoy, I see not why he is not equally entitled to this as a part of the fund which is to furnish support to his family. Philo Medicus apprehends that the expectation of a fee may sometimes operate as an inducement to a physician to give more time to his practice on the Sabbath than necessity may require ; and that the appropriation of the fee to a charitable object will remove the temptation. This is a motive which I believe is much less present to the mind of the physician than is generally supposed. I do not mean to say that physicians are, more than other men, insensible to the value of property, or that some of them are not inordinately desirous of it. But this is connected only with the general feeling that the extension of their business advances their worldly interests. To the well-educated and well-principled physician, this consideration enters very little into the feelings attendant on his daily practice. To the man who feels that the life of a fellow being, the joy of his friends, the hope of a family, depends in a great measure upon his exertions, it is not in human nature that his mind should be occupied with the thought that two or three dollars may be added to his income by his labours. Still less do I believe that the Sunday practice of a pious physician can be influenced by such a consideration. It may be observed that to the other professions and occupations, keeping the Sabbath involves no real sacrifice, corresponding to that which is proposed for physicians. The labour of the six days, in most instances, at least, yields as much as that of the seven probably would if the seventh day were not consecrated to higher purposes. To the lawyer, the merchant, &c. the business which cannot be transacted on the Sabbath is merely reserved for another day; it is not lost to him. Whereas the proposition is, that the physician shall voluntarily deprive himself of nearly one seventh part of the means by which his family is supported. I say nearly one seventh, because, notwithstanding the greater number of new calls on the Sabbath, I believe that physicians generally visit rather fewer patients on that day than on others. Let it be remembered, too, that physicians are more exposed than other men, to charitable calls of a different kind. Medicine is peculiarly a charitable profession; in a sense and to a degree beyond that of any other. I speak not of the disposition of its members as individuals, but of the profession as a whole. Such is the state of society among us, (and no one, I trust, would wish it changed,) that a physi |