the Romish Church must provide themselves with two distinct sets of principles and feelings, the one relating purely and solely to the things of this world, and the other to things eternal.

"The Pope's supremacy," said the present Bishop of London, "is at least ecclesiastical, and an ecclesiastical supremacy necessarily involves some temporal jurisdiction. In point of fact does not the Pope appoint all the titular bishops of Ireland, with incomes of from five hundred to two thousand pounds a-year? And have not these bishops the nomination of all the parish priests, the minimum of whose total income is already 150,000Z.? Is this no interference in temporals? Is it nothing that a foreign potentate, the mortal foe of your Church, should have in the very precincts of that Church, a well-disciplined army of 3,000 men, sworn to pay implicit obedience to his commands; whose generals he appoints, and, be it remembered, has appointed, if not the creatures and partizans, yet the nominees of a Popish pretender to the throne? It is said, indeed, that a titular bishop appointed by the Pope, at the recommendation of the Pretender, might have retained unimpaired his allegiance to the Protestant monarch on the throne. It is possible, no doubt. But what would have been his conduct, had the Pretender appeared at any time with an imposing force on the shores of Ireland; He would have been perplexed; but he would probably have

been relieved from his perplexity by the exercise of what is called the Altum Dominium; that ratio ultima paparum, the specific reserved for emergencies of conscience. He would have been released from his oath of allegiance, as the subjects of the Bourbons, by a bull of Pius VII., were released from theirs.

"I come now to the deposing power of the Pope, which Dr. Doyle tells us is obsolete; a well-chosen word; not abrogated; not annulled; not disavowed; but obsolete. Not to mention a long list of instances which occurred before the seventeenth century, I would remind you that Pope Urban VIII. pretended to depose Charles I. in Ireland in 1643; that Benedict XIII. issued a deposing bull against George II., in 1729, and that Pius VII. deposed Louis XVIII. and absolved all Frenchmen from their oaths of allegiance, when he crowned his dear son Napoleon. I acknowledge that these were empty displays of authority. But although they were empty displays as far as regards the actual power of the Pope, they were not without their effect upon the minds of faithful Roman Catholics, as we should have found to our cost, had circumstances favoured their operation. But Dr. Doyle says, this doctrine is ob olete; that is, out of use. Why, in 1805, Pope Pius VII. instructs his nuncio at Vienna, that the church had decreed, as a punishment of heresy, the confiscation of heretical property, but unfortunately she cannot

now exercise her right of deposing heretics from their principalities.

"This, then, is the obsolete power of deposing princes-obsolete, as the strength of a tiger is obsolete, when his claws are pared and his limbs manacled. These offensive tenets are still embraced by the Romish Church: individuals there may be, and doubtless are, who either disavow them, or retain them in a qualified and mitigated sense; but they are still the doctrines of their church; and it is not competent to any one or more of its members to disclaim them, in the name and on the behalf of the church. Dr. Doyle knows, that he has no authority to do so; for he himself has told us, that the decisions of even Roman Catholic universities on such matters are not conclusive. Neither Dr. Doyle, nor any Roman Catholic university in Christendom, will dare to say, that a single canon of the Council of Trent is to be rejected or contemned; and I maintain, that a church, whose professions of faith and rule of discipline are to be found in the acts of that council, is unfit to be admitted to any considerable share of power or authority in a Protestant State."

"The real and only ground of the exclusion of the Roman Catholics (said the present Bishop of Durham in his speech in the House of Lords in 1825) is this;-that they are (what they do not choose to call themselves)-Papists.

"What then, is the distinguishing feature of

the real Papist? It is, the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy; the acknowledgment, that, in certain respects, the Pope has an authority over the whole Christian world; and, consequently, that in whatever country, or under whatever government, the members of the Church of Rome are placed, they owe to him, as their supreme head, a special allegiance, and are bound, by an obligation paramount to all others, to render him homage and obedience.

"To what extent this authority takes place, is another question. There have been times when it was claimed and exercised, as extending both to spiritual and temporal concerns. The power, however, which the popes formerly asserted over temporal concerns, it may be said, has since died away, and ought not now to be taken into the account. It is true, indeed, that no direct assumption of this power has of late been attempted; and, hence, it is often alleged, that the pretended right is become obsolete, if not extinct. Nor am I unwilling to argue as if it were so. Only let me be allowed to observe, that, even to this day, it has never been formally repealed, never authoritatively disclaimed. So long as the decrees of the Council of Trent continue to be the standard of Papal pretensions, and that council recognises the authority of anterior councils, this asserted prerogative remains virtually in force. However dormant, it is not absolutely extinct; and were times and circum

stances to permit its revival, the authority would still not be wanting to give it effect.

"But setting aside this part of the pretensions of the Papal See, it will suffice for my present purpose to confine our attention to its alleged supremacy in spiritual matters. This is, perhaps, the most important part of the inquiry, attempts being continually made to represent this spiritual supremacy as not involving any temporal interests, and, consequently, not interfering in any degree with the legitimate powers of the State.

"Of all fallacies none appears to me more palpable, more egregious, than that which regards spiritual authority as altogether unconnected with temporal. Theoretically, indeed, they are distinct; but practically, in most cases, it is hardly possible to disunite them. Like the soul and body, (I am using Bellarmine's illustration, not my own ;)-like the soul and body, though each have special qualities and special interests of its own, yet they act one upon the other by mutual co-operation, and affect each other by mutual influence. It may be easy to say, this is a spiritual right, and that a temporal right; this is an exercise of civil power, and that of ecclesiastical:---but when you come to apply these to individual cases, they will be found so blended together, as to render their separation always difficult, sometimes impracticable. And this is in reality the main foundation of that alliance between Church and State, which exists in almost

« ElőzőTovább »