ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS,
AS INVOLVED IN THE RECENT AGGRESSION,
IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED:
AND SHOWN TO IMPLY A SUPREMACY OVER THE REALM OF ENGLAND
THAT IS NEITHER JUSTIFIED BY THE EMANCIPATION ACT,
NOR EXCUSED BY ANY LIBERAL MEASURES OF GOVERNMENT,
NOR CONSISTENT WITH THE FREE ACTION OF THE STATE.
BY
AMICUS VERITATIS.
LONDON :
PUBLISHED BY
THOMAS HATCIIARD, 187, PICCADILLY.
18.31.
LONDON ;
riiiilctl by Maurice and Co., Uowfoid-buililings,
Fcnchurch-strcct.
INTRODUCTION.
The "re-establishment of a Roman Catholic hierarchy" in
this island is a matter of deep and solemn importance. It is so
irrespective of any differences of creed or party, for all have
something at stake, — all are concerned in a measure that is hos-
tile to both civil and religious liberty. The events of the past
few weeks have shown that the country is alive to the importance
of this question. There has been an attempt to distract her by
division, to calm her by gentleness, and to delude her by sophis-
try, but she is not to be misled. Her energies are aroused, and,
true to her own interests, she resolves to resist either the secret or
the open advances of the Church of Rome.
*' After the news reached England of the measure being com-
pleted," says Cardinal Wiseman, *'a pause of a few days ensued,
as if the elements were brewing for the storm. Then it burst out
with absolute fury; every newspaper, with a few honourable excep-
tions, seemed to vie with its neighbour, of most opposite politics
and principles, in the acrimony, virulence, and perseverance of its
i attacks ; Liberal and Conservative, Anglican or Dissenting, grave
or light as their usual tone and character might previously have
been, the energies of all seemed concentrated upon one point, that
of crushing, if it were possible, or denouncing at least to public
execration, the new form of ecclesiastical government which Ca-
tholics regarded as a blessing and an honour." Accepting this,
when weeded of a few expressions, as a fair account of the una-
nimity with which the new hierarchy has been opposed, we natu-
rally think that a question which could bring together persons of
such different and often opposing sentiments must touch upon
common principles, and affect our united interests. What, short
of this, could have calmed our mutual contests? For some
time after the hierarchy was constituted there was little heard of
mutual jealousy, and only a voice here and there told us that
we were not one. The government and the people, the peer
A 2
and commoner, the churchman and dissenter, the pulpit and
the press, all united to denounce a measure by which every
one felt that his freedom was threatened. No sooner were the
Bishops appointed, than two words, *' semper idem^^ passed
from ear to ear, calling up thoughts of the past, — thoughts
that make us blush for human nature, and grieve that reli-
gion should have been prostituted, as it has been, to the vilest
purposes. The approach of the 5th of November naturally gave
point to the excitement, and it seemed as if on that day, not Fawkes
only, but a long line of persecutors and conspirators had to be con-
demned. We thought of the murderers of Cranmer, Ridley, and
Latimer, — of those of Huss and Jerome, — of those who wasted the
Waldenses and Albigenses ; nor could we forget the dark night of
St. Bartholomew, a night stamped with the approval of Rome, and
the blessing of its Pope. These points in history are sufficient, of
themselves, to explain all the agitation that the country has wit-
nessed. We are not alarmed by what is " groundless and vision-
ary," unless, indeed, the past is only a dream; nor are we excited
by "an anti-popery nightmare," but by a wakeful consciousness of
what is passing around us. We were partly slumbering, unmoved
by the " insidious " advances of the church of Rome. The
syren's song had charmed some into error, whose profession re-
quired that they should be truthful, and whose calling demanded
that they should be Protestants ; too many were beginning to
fancy that Rome had changed, and that, where she was still wrong,
we were to " speak gently of a sister's fall." But now the snare
is broken, and we are alive to the fact that men exist among us
who, to quote the eloquent language of a journalist, " in a nation
particularly jealous of foreign interference, owe allegiance to a
foreign potentate, who, in a nation above all others proud of in-
dependence of thought, would compel that thought to submit
meekly to an Italian conclave, or to the decrees of Asiatic bi-
shops fifteen hundred yeaffs dead and buried, who in their mildest
tones betray a latent fierceness, who in their eternal quotations of
their own long-suflfering exhibit an innate sense of the right to
domineer, and a fixed assertion of the penal doom of their oppo-
nents." Such persons there are amongst us : let us seek to un-
derstand their policy and the true nature of their designs.
I. The " re-establishment of the hierarchy" an exercise
of jurisdiction overall England.
In pursuing the inquiry indicated by the title of this section, it
will be necessary to refer at some length to Roman Catholic docu-
ments. The fact that the Pope is exercising a supremacy over
the realm of England is so important in itself, and has so often
been denied, that it requires to be established by the most positive
evidence, and none can be so conclusive as that drawn from Ro-
man Catholic sources. There can be no partialities in them
against Rome, and, certainly, they can contain no Protestant
exaggerations. We quote, in the first place, from the Appeal of
Cardinal Wiseman. '-'• ^\q Catliolics ^'' says the Cardinal, *'had
been governed in England by Vicars- Apostolic since 1623; that is,
by Bishops with foreign titles, named by the Pope and having ju-
risdiction as his vicars or delegates. In 1688 their number
was increased from one to four ; in 1840 from four to eight. A
strong wish had begun to prevail, on the part of the English Ca-
tholics, to change their temporary form of government for the
ordinary form by Bishops with local titles ; that is, by an Eccle-
siastical Hierarchy. Petitions had been sent for this purpose to
the Holy See. The first was in 1834. In 1847, the Vicars-Apos-
tolic assembled in London came to the resolution to depute two
of their number to Rome, to petition earnestly in their names for
the long desired boon The Holy See kindly listened
to the petition, and referred it to the sacred congregation of the
Propaganda. After a full discussion, and further reply to objec-
tions, the boon was granted. The Vicars-Apostolic were desired
to suggest the best divisions for new dioceses, and the best places
for the titles. These were adjusted, the brief was drawn up, and
even printed. Some difficulties arose about a practical point, and
publication was delayed. In 1848 another bishop. Dr. Ullathorne,
was deputed to Rome to remove them : and the measure was again
prepared, when the Roman revolution suspended its final conclu-
sion till now."*
We have given the history of Vicars- Apostolic, as well as the
circumstances that have led to the " restoration " of the hierarchy,
in Dr. Wiseman's own words, omitting only such»parts of his
statements as either are foreign to our present purpose, or will
* Introduction to the Appeal.
have to be mentioDed hereafter. The only point in this account
that deserves particular notice, is the entire absence of any direct
or implied reference to those who are not members of the Roman
Church. Vicars-Apostolic were, he informs us, for the govern-
ment of Catholics ; and the much desired hierarchy was to be
only an administrative provision, necessary for the government of
Roman Catholic flocks . This is as it should be, and if there had
been no other version of the matter, much excitement would have
been spared, and the church of Rome might have had her Bishops
without let or hindrance. But, unfortunately, the Vatican gives an
uncertain sound, and, like all who are addicted to a tortuous
policy, she contradicts herself. The Pope goes beyond his
I Cardinal, and speaks of an authority in Vicars-Apostolic which the
I latter conceals. He tells us that they had the spiritual govern-
' ment oi all England ; and then he adds, that their successors, the
Bishops, are to possess the same authority, with certain additional
powers. " The power of ruling the Universal Church," writes his
Holiness, " committed by our Lord Jesus Christ to the Roman
Pontiff, in the person of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, hath
preserved, through every age in the Apostolic see, that remark-
able solicitude by which it consulteth for the advantage of the
Catholic religion in all parts of the world, and studiously provi-
deth for its extension. Amongst other nations, the famous realm
of England hath experienced the effects of this solicitude on the
part of the supreme Pontiff." After mentioning various instances
in which Rome had exerted her influence to maintain the papacy
in England, the Pope proceeds to say, — "When the king, James
II., ascended the English throne, there seemed a prospect of
happier times for the Catholic religion. Innocent XI. imme-
diately availed himself of this opportunity to ordain, in the year
1685, John Leyburn, Bishop of Adrumetum, Vicar- Apostolic of
all England. Subsequently, by other letters-apostolical, issued
January 30th, 1688, he assg^ciated with Leyburn, as Vicars-Apos-
tolic, three other bishops, with titles taken from churches, in
partibus infldelium ; and accordingly, with the assistance of
Ferdinand, Archbishop ofAmaria, apostolic Nuncio in England,
the same Pontiff divided England into four districts; namely,
the London^ the Eastern, the Midland, and the Northern, each
of which a Vicar- Apostolic commenced to govern ^ furnished with
all suitable faculties, and with the proper powers of a local ordi-
nary This partition of all England into four apostolical
Vicariates lasted till the time of Gregory VI., who, by letters-
apostolical dated July 3rd, 1840, having taken into consideration
the increase which the Catholic religion had received in that
kingdom, made a new ecclesiastical division of the Counties^
doubling the number of apostolical Vicariates, and committing
the government of the whole of England in spirituals to the
Vicars-Apostolic of the London, the Eastern, the Western, the
Central, the Welsh, the Lancaster, the York, and the Northern
Districts."*
There is an obvious and very marked difference between this
language and that of the astute Cardinal of Westminster. The
one only asserts, in the introduction to his Appeal, the most
modest jurisdiction over his faithful Catholic children ; but the
Pope speaks of " the government of the whole of England in
spirituals," tells us that such government was committed to Vicars-
Apostolic, and then assures us that it *' is very far from his intention
or design that the Prelates of England, now possessing the titles
of Bishops in ordinary, should, in any other respect, be deprived
of any advantages which they have enjoyed heretofore under the
characters of Vicars- Apostolic." If, therefore, as the Pope in-
forms us, " the spiritual government of all England " had been
committed to Vicars-Apostolic, and if the newly created bishops
are to suffer in nothing, as we have just seen, by the restora-
tion of the hierarchy, then the government of all England in
spirituals has been committed to the Cardinal and his suffragans
contrary to their repeated and most solemn assurances even in
the house of God. Whom are we to believe, the Cardinal or the
.Pope?
Besides being at variance with the Pastoral of his Holiness, the
Cardinal's Appeal is inconsistent with language that his Eminence
used on other occasions. When seated in his new dignity at Rome,
distant from the excitement of theological discussion, and in the
presence of his Holy Father, he utt^ed the natural and undis-
guised language of his Church. The words of Pius, assigning
*' the government of all England," were echoed by St. Pudentiana ;
and, speaking of himself, he said, " At present, and till such time
as the Holy See shall think fit otherwise to provide, we govern,
and shall continue to govern , the counties of Middlesex, Hertford,
and Essex, .... as Ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey, Kent,
* Letters Pastoral of Pius IX.
8
Berkshire, and Hampshire with the islands annexed, as Adminis-
trator thereof with Ordinary jurisdiction." It was not till the
storm began to rage around him, and he was required to breast it,
that he said, in effect, " our words have a double meaning, and
must be taken in a non-natural sense." His Eminence is still
more unfortunate in his expressions, and uses language in the
Appeal, that it is impossible to limit to members of the Church of
Rome. " Whether," he remarks, " the Pope appoints a person a
Vicar-Apostolic or Bishop in ordinary, in either case he assigns
him a territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction^ and gives him no
personal limitations.'''' * Here are two statements applicable to
the recent appointments : first, that there are no personal limita-
tions ; and, secondly, that they are connected with territorial
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. These two points involve all that we
now oppose in the " restoration " of the hierarchy. Are there
really no personal limitations? Then the matter cannot be so
purely Roman Catholic as we are assured it is. Is there indeed
*' territorial jurisdiction '? " Then the government, for whatever
purposes assigned, must be as extensive as the territory ; and as
there are no personal limitations, it may include authority over all
persons within the assigned territory.
But we must again quote from the apostolic Pastorals, His
Holiness, having restored the hierarchy, and parcelled out England
into dioceses, reserves to himself and to his successors the power
of again dividing the country and appointing bishops when and
as they please ; if, therefore, the recent arrangement be submitted
to, we cannot tell how soon another division will be made, or to
what extent the agents of the Papacy will be multiplied among us.
Nor is this all. The insolence of aggression rises still higher^
and the Pope decrees, that " if in any other manner," besides
those he had named, " any other attempt shall be made by any
person, or by any authority, knowingly or ignorantly, to set
aside these" his "enactments, such attempts shall be null and
void." As if it were not enough to pass over in silence the author-
ity of the Queen and Parliament, the Pope rescinds by anticipa-
tion any measure that may be passed against him, and declares it
"null and void." Here is the essence of Papal tyranny, and that
which renders Romish pretensions dangerous to civil as well as to
religious liberty. The idea of infallible authority clings to every
thing which Rome says or does ; hence her priesthood imagine,
* Appeal, p. 22.
that whatever is done against her is done against God, and there-
fore cannot bind men's consciences. We ask any Romish priest
whether this is not modern as well as ancient teaching ? He
knows it is.
The fact that Dr. Wiseman is already virtually absolved from
obedience to any law that may be passed against the new hier-
archy, will perhaps explain part of a sermon that he delivered in
St. George's, Southwark, on Sunday, December 8th: "New
legislative enactments may be passed," he observed, "as it has
been suggested, whereby the obnoxious sound of new titles may
be hushed, and the ears of the zealous be no longer affected by
their utterance ; and then the conclusion will come of itself, that
the name, and not the thing, caused all the fear and the displea-
sure, for no amount of human legislation can touch the substance,
annul the spiritual organic structure of the Catholic body, or
permanently derange its vital functions Now the obe-
dience which every Catholic will pay to his Bishop, the bond of
union which holds together pastor and flock, cannot he affected by
any law ; and so long as every Catholic, who six months ago
obeyed a Vicar-Apostolic of a district in which he lived, now will
obey the Bishop of a see placed in another county, because the
Pope has named the Bishop and has transferred him to his obe-
dience,— so long as this is the case, all the substance, and essence,
and reality of the hierarchy will exist, although he may be under
penalties, as his fathers were, if he venture to call his Bishop by
his title." What is this but saying, " The law of England cannot
revoke what has been done ? It may silence the titles we bear ;
but the decree of the Pope shall stand, and the hierarchy remain."
Yet the Cardinal of Westminster is at a loss to find out any asser-
tion of authority over the realm of England. He examines the
pastoral of his Holiness, he re-peruses his own, but can find no-
thing like encroachment, while all besides, save those who are
interested in being deceived, see a power that would anathematize
us if it dare, and excommunicate us if it could. Well might the
Prime-minister say that there is " an assumption of power in all
the documents which have come from Rome, a pretension to su-
premacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undi-
vided sway." No sentence was ever more truthful, and none
required a more explicit answer from the Cardinal ; but let us see
how he meets it. He does not say that there is no claim to supre-
macy over the realm of England. He avoids this point, and
10
simply informs us that '* every official document has its proper
form; and that had those who blame the tenor of this, taken any
pains to examine those of Papal documents, they would have found
nothing new or unusual in this." True ; but what answer is this
to the Premier's charge ? His Lordship knew, as well as his Emi-
nence, that " every official document has its proper form," but this
. can be no palliation of the particular form into which Romish
official documents happen to be cast. His Lordship knew also,
and it required little pains to ascertain it, that there is *' nothing
new or unusual " in the recent brief. It was this fact that called
forth the protest. Had there been something new, it might pos-
sibly have been something better; but there is ^* nothing new,
nothing unusual.'' The forms of the recent documents are an-
cient; no one will question it, and they carry us back to times
when the thunders of the Vatican could clothe a nation in sack-
cloth, and when our monarch bowed to receive his crown from a
priest. Can it be a comfort to us to know that the forms of papal
briefs, and therefore the claims involved in them, are the same as
those of olden times? of the days of John, of Henry VIII., and
of Elizabeth ? Nay, such knowledge will only rouse us to greater
watchfulness, and to more determined opposition.
The Cardinal has beckoned us to the past. Let us follow him,
for we may thus learn our true position, and the relation in
which all persons and countries are supposed to stand to the
Pope. It may be painful to the priesthood to hear what their
church has taught; but they must bear with it, especially as
authority has told us that there is " nothing new or unusual."
Gregory VII., a. d. J 063, decreed that the Pope should be called
*' Father of Fathers," as " he has the primacy over all, is greater
than all, and the greatest of all. God," he observed, " made
two great lights in the firmament of heaven ; the greater light to
rule the day, and the less to rule the night, both great, but one
the greater. In the firmament of heaven, that is, the Universal
Church, God made two great lights, that is, he instituted two dig-
nities, which are the pontifical authority and the regal power;
but that which presides over the day, that is, the spiritual, is the
greater ; and that which presides over carnal things is the less ;
for as the sun diflfers from the moon. Popes differ from Kings."*
We will not say that Cardinal Wiseman had this passage in his
* Corp. Juris Canon, a Pithao., Extrav. Com. lib. i. De Majoritat. et
Obedient., tit. viii. p. 365.
11
mind when he wrote his pastoral near the Flaminian gate at Rome,
but there certainly is a striking resemblance in the thoughts.
*' Catholic England," he tells us, *' has been restored to its orbit
in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long va-
nished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted
action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of
light and of vigour." The Pope, then, according to modern
illustration, is the central sun, " the source of jurisdiction, of
light and of vigour." What power on earth can equal this?
Surely Gregory and Nicholas teach the same thing; namely, that
the Pope is the sun, monarchs moving and shining only by a con-
trolled influence and a borrowed light.
Nor is Nicholas the only modern Roman Catholic who advo-
cates the utmost spiritual power as residing in the Pope, and
thence derived to his Archbishops and Bishops throughout the
world. We wish he were ! But, unfortunately, the same teaching
has found its way into the pulpit and through the press, and
almost every publication of the Church of Rome abounds with
*' ultra-montane " sentiments ; concerning which the Duke of
Norfolk has said, that *' they are inconsistent with loyalty to the
Queen." Among other instances, we may mention a weekly pe-
riodical called *' the Lamp," which often asserts the Pope's
" supremacy over the realm of England, and his claim to sole
and undivided sway," in inost offensive and un-English terms.
When writing of the Cardinal, its editor remarks, " Rome, old
glorious Rome, still the Mistress of the World, has presumed,
in her imperial pride to confer the dignity of a Cardinal on a
British subject ; nay, more, has created a new dignity to do fur-
ther honour to that Cardinal, and that dignity is nothing
less than an Archbishopric, — the Archbishopr c of Westminster!
Poor Anglicanism ! What she suffers may be gathered from the
insolent ravings of the blatant bullies, whose fierce denunciations
of Romanism disgrace the leading journals of London, and all
others accustomed to catch their tone." Very polite this, no
doubt, in the editor of * the Lamp ;' yet let it be known that this
is modern popery, — not the saying of some by-gone, antiquated
writer. But the editor proceeds to say : *' By the time his Emi-
nence shall have held his first synod, and his Holiness shall have
ratified its acts, the fever which now boils in the veins of the
Anglicans shall have cooled down to blood-heat, and they will
stand prepared to open a regular political intercourse with Rome.
12
There is no doubt of it. True, our prophecy may err with regard
to time, but despite the old law of prcBmunire, the fact is certain.
A Bill for diplomatic relations with Rome, and on Rome's own
terms, must be passed by the British legislature. Britain must
yield, as the younger state should. Rome cannot bend. Her
legate must be received at St. James's, and that legate must be a
Cardinal."* Who, we would ask, is the author of this insolent
paragraph ? He cannot surely be an Englishman ! He may,
possibly, be naturalized, but we should suppose he is an alien, —
a Jesuit driven from some foreign shore. Has it come to this,
that we are to have amongst us men who will shrink from nothing
that can bring us into vassalage to Rome ? men who would exalt
her at the expense of our dignity ? and who seek to force upon
us political as well as spiritual changes ?
But we cannot yet dismiss the Fathers. They say too much
about the authority of Rome to be treated with only a passing
notice. "The Spiritual power," said Boniface VIII., " ought to
judge the Earthly, if it be not good: thus is verified the prophecy
of Jeremiah, ^ I have placed thee over the nations.''^' ] Pius V,
in 1570, in his Bull against Queen Elizabeth, gave expression to
similar sentiments. " Our blessed Lord," he said, " committed
to St. Peter and his successors the government of the Church,
with all fulness of power. He constituted him alone a prince
over all nations and all kingdoms, to pull up and throw down, to
scatter and destroy, to plant and build, that he may keep in the
unity of the spirit the faithful people." There is much in these
two quotations that sounds very like what is said in these days.
In the former, the Pope is called a judge ; in the latter, a Prince
over all nations. As a prince, we suppose, he presumes to divide
this country, and confer "territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction;"
as a judge, he sits and condemns the Irish Colleges : hence we
read, " the judge has spoken and controversy is at an end." It
must not be thought that we are uncharitably ascribing these sen-
timents to the priesthood of the present day. They may hesitate
to affirm that the Pope is a prince " to pull up and throw down,
to scatter and destroy, to plant and build," but they maintain
that he is a prince, to whom monarch and subject ought alike to
* Lamp, part ix., p. 489.
t Corp. Juris Canon., torn, ii., Extrav. Com., lib. i. tit. viii., De Majorit. et
Obedient. Bonif. \iii., cap. i. p. 394.
13
submit ; and that, as a judge, when he speaks, controversy should
be hushed for ever.
But where is proof of this ? " At the bidding of Henry VIII.,"
says * the Lamp,' already quoted, " England, like an ungrateful
rebel, renounced her allegiance to the chair of Peter, and, like a
crouching slave, transferred her fealty to a bloated debauchee and
his successors for ever." Let it be observed, that to reject the
authority of the Pope is to be "an imgrateful rebel," and to yield
our transferred fealty to a successor of Henry, that is to the Queen,
is " crouching slavery." But we have not done with this Roman
* Lamp : ' it must enlighten us still more on the teaching of those
whom we are to cherish on our shores. Speaking of the Pas-
toral of Pius, it remarks, *' Another assertion is, that this Bull is
' an aggression,' ' a violation of the Constitution,' ' a personal
insult to the Queen.' " And how are these assertions met? Not
by a denial of their truth, but by an argument that amounts to
this : 'There can be no aggression, no violation of the Constitu-
tion, and no insult to the Queen, because you are all rebels, and
the Pope is exercising his rightful and inalienable authority.'
" The very fact," writes the editor, " of Henry the Eighth's usur-
pation of the supremacy, and of his putting men to death for deny-
ing it, proves the existence of an older authority, — that of the
Pope There is this just and necessary distinction be-
tween the regal and the papal power ; the one is human and tran-
sitory, the other divine and imperishable. The Church does
not, she cannot change. The J^ullum Tempus act certainly ob-
tains here at least ; for, we repeat, the right by which the Pope
claims sovereignty is not human, but divine. Now what is di-
vine he holds not of himself, neither can he abandon it, but with
life, therefore he cannot abandon his right over the souls of men ;
it follows, again, that the ignorance of his powers, or their denial,
does not invalidate their efficacy. Take a quasi parallel case.
A state rebels against its lawful sovereign, makes war upon him,
defies his armies, and finally establishes its independence ; and
yet the assertion of its independence does not necessarily consti-
tute freedom ; it depends upon the injured master to recognise
the claims of his revolted subjects. But it is true, and
no more than common justice, that rebellion, though successful,
is still rebellion till the person whom it most concerns foregoes
his just title. Now as the Pope cannot give up the power re-
14
ceived from Heaven for spiritual ends, it necessarily follows that
all his spiritual rights and privileges remain intact^ * The
inference from this passage, — nay, more, the direct statement it
contains is obviously thisj that we are all rebels to our Sovereign
Lord the Pope ; and if we are rebels, what must be said of the
Head, — our gracious and beloved Queen? That Her Majesty
is but we cannot write it ! those who read may draw the
natural inference.
The conclusions forced upon us by the documents we have now
considered are the following : —
1. That the See of Rome claims and exercises a right to govern
the realm of England for such purposes as the Pope may pro-
nounce spiritual. 2. That in the exercise of that right, the Holy
Father may divide the country into districts or dioceses at his
pleasure. 3. That he may appoint whomsoever he will to the dis-
tricts or dioceses so created, — England having no security against
ultra-montane opinions, foreign partiality, or even against the in-
troduction of a foreign prince. 4. That he has power to assign
to such persons territorial jurisdiction, and also titles of dignity,
and to hand over to their supervision the souls included in their
diocese ; and 5. That he has divine authority to do this, so that
any measure hostile to his arrangements, whether made in igno-
rance or with a design to frustrate his purposes, is null and void.
Can we wonder, with these facts before us, that the Duke of
Norfolk, Lord Camoys, and Lord Beaumont unite with us in pro-
testing against the recent aggression? or that his Grace has said,
in words which deserve the highest praise, '* I should think that
many must feel as we do, that ultra-montane opinions are totally
incompatible with allegiance to our Sovereign, and with the
Constitution.'' ]
IL The " re-establishment of the hierarchy " a claim to
the obedience of all baptized persons.
The sentiments of modern Roman Catholics respecting the
sovereignty of his Holiness and the rebellion of England, remind
us that it was once a custom to speak of all baptized persons as
children and subjects of the Pope, and to say that the children
might be corrected and the rebels punished. This was not the
* Lamp, part. x. p. 548.
t Letter of His Grace the Duke of Norfolk to Lord Beaumont.
15
teaching of obscure individuals, but of learned theologians of the
Church of Rome, supported by the decisions of its sacred
councils. The Council of Trent, whose decisions every Eoman
Catholic is bound to receive, declared,' in her fourth canon, that
'* children are to be reckoned among the faithful by the reception
of baptism," that is, all baptized persons are to be reckoned
among the faithful, at least as far as subjection is concerned.
Her eighth and fourteenth canons taught the same thing, and
bound with a curse any who should say that baptized persons
were not to be forced to obedience. The canons run thus : —
" Canon 8. Whoever shall affirm that the baptized are free
from all the precepts of the holy Church, either written or de-
livered by tradition, so that they are not obliged to observe them
unless they will submit to them of their own accord ; let him be
accursed.
" Canon 14. Whoever shall affirm that when these baptized
children grow up they are to be asked whether they will confirm
the promises made by their godfathers in their name at their
baptism ; and that if they say they will not, they are to be left to
their own choice, and not to be compelled, in the mean time, to
lead a Christian life by any other punishment than exclusion
from the Eucharist, and the rest of the sacraments, until they
repent; let him be accursed."
Benedict XIV. taught in his Constitution, that heretics, or per-
sons of the English sect, are members of the Roman Church, and
subject to her authority and laws. And Peter Dens declared,
with the greatest distinctness, " That heretics, schismatics, apos-
tates, and all such as are baptized, are subject to the laws of the
Church which concern them, because by baptism they become
abject to the Church; nor are they released from her laws any
more than rebellious subjects against a prince are released from
the laws of the prince."* This language is plain, and cannot be
misunderstood. But perhaps these dogmas have been abandoned,
for the Cardinal assures us that the hierarchy is in all respects
purely Catholic ! Nothing would give us more pleasure than to
accept this statement, if the fullest evidence and the sternest neces-
sity did not compel us to think the opposite. *' Every soul that
receives baptism," writes the editor of * The Lamp,' " is baptized
into the Church ; it is not made a follower of this or that sect,
* Dons flo Lcgil)us, torn. ii. p. 288.
16
but a member of the onefold ; and it continues to be a member
of the Church till it forfeits its right by some capital offence
against faith and morality." This is precisely the teaching of
Benedict XIV., of Dens, now read in Ireland, of the Council of
Trent, and of others too numerous to name. But what has this
to do with the restoration of the hierarchy ? Much every way.
We are told with all gentleness that the Holy Father was provi-
ding for his dear Catholic children, and that there is no assertion
whatever of dominion over us ; yet, within ten days from the time
the Appeal was written, we are reminded by ' the Lamp,' that if
baptized, we are members of the Roman Church and children of
the Pope, — perhaps disobedient, but still children of his Holiness,
and therefore subjects of the Cardinal.
We have referred to our subjection to the Cardinal in the form
of an inference, as though there were no positive assertion that we
owe him allegiance in any Roman Catholic document. But such
assertion does exist. " There is one point," writes the editor of
* the Lamp,* " in which these men who rail at Rome and the
Archbishop of Westminster must surely be ignorant, and of
which we would gladly make them cognizant. Are they aware
that he may be accountable for their salvation ? If they be
baptized, they are certainly his spiritual subjects, and owe
him obedience.'''' It is, then, as we thought, and as the British
public have every where believed. The Cardinal comes to
our shores, not simply to watch over *' a blessed pasture, in
which sheep of holy Church are to be tended," but to claim
all England as his province; and, though he denies it again
and again, every baptized subject of the British empire, and —
may we be forgiven if we add — our beloved Queen herself
is consigned to his rule, and, according to what we have just
quoted, owes hi7n obedience. The reason assigned for our being
his subjects, " if they be baptized," shows that the words are
alike applicable to the Palace and to Downing-street, to Lambeth
and to Fulham, to Westminster and to " Printing-house-square."
If this be a correct account of the aggression, where can be the
justice of an intimation made by Dr. Wiseman in a sermon on the
15th December, that we have no right to question him about the
matter, and that it is unfair to expect an answer? " Why," he
said, " should we give reasons to any one for using our rights?"
Why ? because your pretended rights trench upon the rights of
17
Others. " But it is sufficient," he added, ** if we consider the
change advantageous." Sufficient! How so, when what is ad-
vantageous to Rome may possibly be a curse to England ? It
might be sufficient if the claim to supremacy over Englishmen
were only found in time-worn books, and not in modern publica-
tions, or if his Eminence were seated in the Vatican instead of
Golden-square. But when the claim to sovereignty is not idle,
but active ; when there are priests asserting it in such language,
that the military are obliged to retire from Roman Catholic cha^
pels ; and when unknown agents are seen tracking the path of
lonely females at Exeter and Glasgow ; when, also, there are
twelve spiritual sovereigns either already enthroned, or about to
be enthroned, in so-called dioceses of England, and when each of
these claims the obedience of all baptized persons within the ter-
ritory assigned to him, and wields a sword believed to be more
deadly than steel, it is time to bestir ourselves, and not only to
ask their object, but to demand an explicit answer. The leader
of the Roman movement may think, that as *' the ecclesiastical
is independent of the civil authority,"* it is a humiliation to
plead in any other than a spiritual court. He may fancy that we
should not require him to tell the secrets of the Italian cabinet,
because he has sworn not to reveal them to the injury of the
Church ;f but he will find that England knows her rights, and
can maintain them ; that she will allow no servant of the Pope to
trifle with her, — and more, that " no foreign prince or potentate
will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a nation which has so
long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion,
civil, political, and religious." But let us see if the Pope and his
servants really contemplate this.
" The hierarchy has been established," writes the editor of *the
Lamp,* J '* and the ancient action of the Church will now set in
unimpeded, and with as much grace and effect, as when in former
days in this our country its spiritual influence reduced barbarism
to civilization, paganism to Christianity. Such will assuredly be
the case if the sins of our own children mar not the grace of
God." We pass over for a moment " the ancient and unimpeded
action of the Church," to notice the state from which, according
* Pastoral of John (called) Bishop of Beverley, 1850.
t Oath of the hierarchy of the Italian Church, in Decret. Greg, ix., lib. ii.,
tit. 24.
:{: Part ix. p. 489.
B
18
to this writer, Romanism is about to raise us. He will hardly
say that we are " barbarous and pagan," though his Holy Father
treats us as if we were ; but his words intimate that we are in a
dark and fearful condition. Hence our conversion would be like
humanizing the barbarous, and christianizing the heathen. If this
quotation were not from a Romish author, we should, no doubt,
incur the displeasure of his Eminence of Westminster, who is in-
dignant at the idea that the Pope has treated England like a
heathen land. *' How could he?" he asks, " when he sees it
covered with the monuments of Catholic greatness and piety ;
when he sees remaining in it so many institutions of the Catholic
Church; when he sees much zeal and charity exercised by its
people ; when, even through those who come into his communion
from Anglicanism and Dissent, he learns how much earnestness
there is here about truth, how much deep religious sentiment."*
Can Nicholas fancy, for an instant, that he will be able to de-
ceive us by such sophistry as this? We referred to Protestant-
ism, he speaks of Catholic greatness and piety. It was never
imagined, much less said, that, in such respects as England is
connected with Rome, the Pope treats her as heathen, but it is
manifest that, in all other respects, he does so treat her. Hence
the Queen and her advisers are not to be listened to in this mat-
ter ; the parliament in both its branches has no authority ; the
ministers of the Established Church, whether bishops, priests, or
deacons, are of no more importance than the parish-beadle; and
the various Protestant dissenting -ministers are intruders into the
house of God. In a word, our pastors are no ministers of Christ,
our churches are no churches, our theology is a nullity, and our
religion is either fanaticism or a dream. We have expressed the
arrogant pretensions of the Roman priesthood in our own lan-
guage to avoid the tediousness of copying, a task alike weari-
some to the writer and the reader ; but we must fortify our state-
ments by a few Roman Catholic authorities that are ready to our
hand.
*' We look up to the Pope," observes a writer in ' the Lamp,'
" as our spiritual Father, and regard him as the visible head of
the Church, without whom there is no such thing as Christianity/
upon the earth To deny the Pope is to deny Christ.
Without Christ there is no Pope, and without the Pope there is
* Lect. 2, on occasion of Cardinal Wiseman's enthronement.
19
no Christianity''^ This is plain, and goes far to sustain the
assertion that our religion is denied. But we read further, in the
same publication, that " without the presence of the Roman Ca-
tholic Church among us Christianity is turned into a
hy-word and /able of the past. Then," adds the writer, " would
civilization, under the banner of infidelity, remain master of the
field, .... the vision of eternity would be a blank, the watch-
word of the world to come a mysterious legend, and the promise
of salvation nought but the sound of a distant report faintly re-
echoed, without sense or meaning. Death alone would live to
catch the living in his snare, or smite the godless worldling in his
mid-career." We are at a loss which to condemn first, the asser-
tion that without Rome Christianity is a. by-word and a fable, or
the implied reflection it contains upon all who deny the Pope's
supremacy. Thank God, Christianity is not dependent upon either
Rome or England, nor upon the Vatican and its priests. It has
an inherent life too divine to be touched by the errors of councils,
the failings of priests, or the false decisions of Popes, and it lives
wherever Christ is received into the heart by faith. There are
many in this country who pay no allegiance to Rome, and yet
love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth. They ask not
the absolution of Westminster, and yet '* the peace of God, which
passeth all understanding, keeps their heart and mind in Christ
Jesus ;" they seek not the intercession of Mary, and yet they have
fellowship with the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy
Spirit. These persons are "without the Pope;" is, therefore,
" the vision of eternity a blank " to them? is " the watchword of
the world to come a mysterious legend? and the promise of sal-
vation nought but the sound of a distant report, without sense or
meaning ?" His Holiness is surely too mild and gentle to assert
this, and Nicholas of Westminster cannot persuade himself to*
utter such harsh words. No ; we '* are brethen most dear, though
in separation." This would do very well, if different language
were not found elsewhere ; but, unfortunately for Westminster,
' the Lamp ' tells us that " Christianity, or, more properly speak-
ing, faith in Christ lives only in the Roman Catholic Church,
without which it is not.'' It is impossible for any denial of our
Christianity and our faith to be more explicit than this. Perhaps
* the Lamp ' has revealed too much, but that is not our business.
* Lamp, pt. viii. p. 462.
B 2
20
We are satisfied now, if we never were before, that till the " resto-
ration" of the hierarchy, we were reckoned " in partihus infide-
lium,^^ and that now we are commanded to hear the Roman
Church, that is her priests, under pain of being counted no better
than heathens and publicans if we do not obey her ; and let it
be remembered, that this call is addressed to monarch and subject,
to prince and peasant. The sound has gone out into all the land ;
or, as a Romish priest would say, *' the Church has raised her
voice, and proclaimed to an astonished world the free resumption
of that empire which heresy and schism, cherished by the spirit
of Mammon, had so long laboured to wrest from her grasp." *
The " restoration " of the hierarchy is not, then, that simple,
harmless. Catholic thing that Nicholas would fain have us believe.
It is a resumption of empire by the Church of Rome, — of that
empire which English heretics and schismatics wrested from her
at the Reformation ; and that which she resumes is free, indepen-
dent, and unfettered, — more free than it is now in Roman Ca-
tholic countries, or than it was in England in Catholic times.
Hence we are told that " the Pope never dreams that it is neces-
sary to consult the taste of Lord John, or the Lord Chancellor, or
Chief-justice Campbell." f Nay, for why should he? They are
his subjects, and owe Am allegiance. And, besides, " the ancient
action of the Church must now set in unimpeded.'' She has been
overloaded and buried for the last three hundred years, but " the
stone is taken away from the sepulchre ;" rebels had usurped her
empire, but she now resumes it. Nor is the recent aggression
wanting in any thing necessary to constitute it a resumption of
empire, except in the power to give effect to its decisions and to
reduce us to obedience. But this want does not invalidate the
papal claim ; for if England take possession of a savage country,
it matters little that some of the aborigines betake themselves to
their forests and fastnesses ; they may ere long be subdued by
gentleness or vanquished by arms : so it makes no difference to
Rome that the nation is indignant, or that the Premier protests ;
both may, it is hoped, be vanquished by the mission of mitred dig-
nitaries, of Jesuit fathers, and of gentle nuns. In the mean time
every thing is done that can be, to subdue the nation and obtain
ecclesiastical dignity and honour.
* Lamp, pt. viii, p. 432. f Ibid., pt. x, p. 546.
21
III. How "the re-establishment of the hierarchy" affects
our national interests.
The claim to supremacy over the realm and people of England,
as put forth by the Pope and his servants, appears to be a matter
of the gravest kind ; yet his Eminence undertakes to teach its
harmlessness, and to assure us that there is little in his conduct
that may not be charged upon all dissenters. " The royal supre-
macy," he remarks, " is no more admitted by the Scotch kirk, by
Baptists, Methodists, Independents, Presbyterians, and other dis-
senters, than by Catholics. None of these recognise in the Queen
any authority to interfere in their religious concerns, to appoint
their ministers for them, or to mark the limits of their separate
districts in which their authority has to be exercised."* This may
be true, and no doubt is to a certain extent ; but if it were cor-
rect to the letter, it would still corae far short of the papal denial
of the supremacy. The dissenters do not recognise an authority
in the Queen to appoint their ministers, to interfere in their reli-
gious concerns, or to mark the limits of their separate districts,
&c. : here most of them stop, but the Roman Catholic priest-
hood deny that Her Majesty has any rightfid supremacy what-
ever in spiritual matters ; and they assert, therefore, that the power
she has, or does exercise in the Church of England, is usurped.
Nor is this all. "When a dissenter," writes the Cardinal, '* de-
nies the royal supremacy, always meaning by this term the spi-
ritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction attributed to the Crown, he
substitutes, perhaps, for it some other authority in some Synod or
Conference, or he admits of none other to take its place. But
when the Catholic denies it, it is because he believes another and
a true ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy to reside in the Pope
or Bishop of Rome, over the entire Catholic Church." These
remarks, though intended to prove the sameness of dissenting and
Romish action, separate them by an almost infinite distance.
Those who substitute no authority in the place of the Queen's, can-
not be supposed to rival her power; while such as confide autho-
rity to a conference or synod, do so exclusively for the manage-
ment of their separate or individual interests, never asserting the
least jurisdiction over others. Not so Rome: she "believes,"
says Nicholas, " another ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy
in the Bishop of Rome over the entire Catholic Church," mean,
* Appeal, page 10.
22
ing thereby, over all baptized persons. Now no dissenter claims
an authority over the throne and the people, over every kirk, pres-
bytery, synod, conference, and congregation in the land; yet this
is precisely what the Holy See does, and her claim involves a right
in the Pope to do what the Queen never attempts ; that is, to
break up every kirk, to abolish every presbytery, to dismiss every
synod, to close every conference, and to lead each congregation to
the feet of a priest.
But the Cardinal tells us it is perfectly lawful for him to assert
this claim. "With him the two acts resolve themselves into one;
denial of the royal supremacy, and assertion of the papal supre-
macy. And as it is perfectly lawful for him to deny the one, so,"
he infers, *' it is equally lawful for him to assert the other."
After what we have said, the inference drawn by Dr. Wiseman
will not appear either natural or just. It by no means follows
that because St. Pudentiana can deny the Queen's supremacy over
himself with impunity, he may therefore assert papal, and by
consequence his own, authority over the Queen. Here is the
ground of the whole contest we have with him. Whether it be
lawful to assert the Pope's supremacy will depend upon two things ;
first, on what the supremacy implies; and secondly, on what is
meant by asserting it. If the supremacy of the Pope only mean
that he is the head of the Roman Catholic church, not extending
the title so as to include all the baptized, — that he is the fountain
of power to their priesthood, and to them a bond of union, they
may hold it who please ; but if it mean that he is head over all
things to the church on earth, — that he has received a dominion
which requires the submission of every human being, — that he
has authority over all churches, and that, making allowance for
ignorance, there is no church, no religion, no communion with
God without him : if it mean that he can pronounce invalid every
act of the Queen as head of the Church of England, — that he can
undo by his apostolic authority all that Her Majesty has done in
the appointment of bishops, &c,, and that he can appoint others
to supply the place of existing prelates : if it mean, also, that, as
a judge, he can condemn, for the guidance of English subjects,
whatever the Parliament may do that is supposed to affect spiri-
tual things, — if, we say, the Pope's supremacy mean this, there is
some and grave doubt about the lawfulness of asserting it.
But something will depend, also, upon the manner of asserting
23
it, whether it be by word or action. The remarks of Lord Chan-
cellor Lyndhurst, quoted on page 12 of the Appeal, clearly point
to this. *' It was no crime," he said, " in the Roman Catholic to
maintain and defend the supremacy of the Pope If he
merely maintained and defended, as he was bound to do, the spi-
ritual authority/ of his superior, then he said that he was guilty
of no offence against the laws of the country." It is important
to observe that Lord Lyndhurst spoke of the maintenance and
defence by a Roman Catholic of the spiritual authority of his supe-
rior. He made no reference to the Pope as supreme over all the
baptized, which is asserted now; but his lordship went on to the
manner of maintaining and defending the supremacy of the Pope.
"If any person," he said, " improperly, wantonly, or seditiously
called in question the supremacy of the Crown of England, — and
that, it was to be observed, included the temporal as well as the
spiritual power of the Crown ; if any, from any improper motive
or purpose, or in any improper manner, questioned that supre-
macy, then that person would be liable to a prosecution at the
common law." Here, it must be acknowledged, is a very impor-
tant field of inquiry. By what rules are we to determine when
the supremacy of the Crown is called in question improperly,
wantonly, and seditiously ? How are we to decide what motive,
purpose, and manner are improper ? It is not for us to answer
these questions, but we submit that it looks like impropriety either
to ignore what the Queen has done, or to confer titles of dignity
in England, or to divide this country for purposes of government,
or to give territorial spiritual jurisdiction. All this is improper,
both in the act and in the purpose. But it will be requisite to
prove this impropriety somewhat more particularly, as Nicholas
seeks to explain it away.
The Pope, by his recent measures, has ignored and practically
annulled all that the Queen has done by virtue of her spiritual
authority. Now it is matter of very serious question whether his
Holiness, either in propriety or law, has a right to do this. The
Cardinal will inform us, " that Rome had nothing to say, in treat-
ing of a Catholic hierachy, of what no Catholic considers a part of
his church, — the Anglican hierarchy." The propriety of this
will depend upon what " a Catholic hierarchy " means. If it be a
hierarchy for all England, which we contend it is, then Rome
ought to have had something to say about the authority of our
24
sovereign and her spiritual rule. The prince of a foreign and
independent state is not, and cannot be required to admit that
English law has any force or authority on his own soil ; but if he
pass the bounds of his kingdom and enter ours, it would be a
crime, or at least an impropriety, to speak and act as if there were
no monarch and no laws : — so, while the Bishop of Rome con-
fined himself to his own province, that is to the spiritual direction
of the Eoman Catholics of London, Westminster, Lambeth, &c.,
he was not obliged even to know that there were English church-
men and dissenters; but the moment his measures passed from
Catholics to the nation, from persons to territory, it was an insult
to the Queen not to recognise her rule so far as she has exer-
cised it.
And if to ignore her Majesty's rule or pass it by be an insult,
what term must be applied to the arrogance that assumes the
sceptre she has wielded, that speaks as she has spoken, acts as
she has acted, and that in the very place where we have been wont
to acknowledge that " over all persons and in all causes she is su-
preme?" Here is a conflict of powers, one of which must yield.
Which shall it be ? There is a reviv£tl of the ancient pretensions
that have often torn and distracted our beloved country ; preten-
sions that have closed her churches, hushed her prayers, dis-
honoured her dead, humbled her monarchs, and bathed her
people in tears. " Nothing new or unusual," says Nicholas.
We partly believe him, and therefore we would nip the blossom
rather than taste the fruit. But the present contest has something
in in that is new and unusual. In all former struggles touching
the appointment of bishops, the contest has been about the ap-
pointment to vacant dioceses, not so much, if at all, about the
creation of sees. Nor has there ever been in England, as far as
history tells us, the formation of a whole hierarchy in opposition
to a hierarchy sanctioned and nominated by the Crown. But all
these go to form our national ground of complaint ; not simply
the appointment of one bishop to a vacant see, though that
would have called for resistance, but the appointment of a hier-
archy of bishops by the Pope, and the creation by him of twelve
new sees. To appoint one bishop without respect to the mo-
narch's will, was deemed by our forefathers an invasion of the
royal prerogative, and was nobly resisted ; how much more is the
royal prerogative invaded by the creation of twelve sees and the
25
appontment of a whole hierarchy of bishops, and that not only
independently of the Throne, but in opposition to it !
The opposition of the new hierarchy to the authority of Her
Majesty and her government is a point of the highest importance,
and one that ought never to be lost sight of in the present discus-
sion. That opposition does not come to us, as in olden times, in
the thunders of the Vatican, in the excommunication of a priest,
or in the non-interment of our dead, for such conduct would only
rouse us to instant indignation ; but the hostility of the papacy to
what we consider the rightful authority of the Crown, is as deter-
mined and as unbending as ever. We do not mean merely that
the papal hierarchy is in its existence opposed to the wish of the
Queen and her ministers ; we write of something more intolerable
than a disregard to her Majesty's will, — that is, of opposition to
her actions. We hold it as a principle, that where the Queen has
done any thing in the way of government, no Englishman, and
therefore, a fortiori^ no foreigner has a right to step forward and
do the like, — especially in the same place, and with reference to
the same thing. It may be competent for any one to ask the go-
vernment to resign its prerogative in a given case, or even humbly
to petition the Queen to undo what she has done ; but till the Queen
and government have given up their claim and revoked their acts,
it is unseemly and insulting for any subject of the Crown, and
much more so for any " foreign prince, prelate, or potentate " to
oppose his prerogative to their prerogative, his claim to their claim,
his acts to their acts. Now this is what his Holiness has recently
done. We cared little for Popish pretensions while Rome con-
fined herself to the field of theology. It was then a war of words,
and Cantuar might discuss with Nicholas, or York with John of
Beverley, without any one " shouting for the sword of the state;"
but it is far otherwise now. The Pope has drawn out his forces,
and he has called to action. By a re-division of the country for
ecclesiastical government he has opposed his action to that of the
Queen, and by the begun formation o^ parishes he has set him-
self in array against the Parliament as well as the Crown. Can
any thing be imagined more offensive than this contest? The
servants of the papacy might have tried, without let or hindrance,
to convince us that their Holy Father is sole head of the Church
on earth ; they might have endeavoured to teach us that his Holi-
ness, and he alone, has power to create sees, to form parishes, and
26
to give rule for spiritual purposes in this realm of England ; but
we contend that they had no more right to do what they have
done without the concurrence of the Crown and the sanction of
the Legislature, than they have to repeal laws and enact new ones,
or than they have to barter the independence of England, and make
her a fief of Kome.
But these remarks are as applicable to what is prospective in
the action of the Church of Rome, as to what is past. We speak,
of course, only of what has reference to government, not of forms
of worship, or of direct influence on the individual conscience.
The hierarchy has been formed, but its formation was only the
beginning of something that is in its every act an invasion of the
royal prerogative, and an interference with the functions of go-
vernment. If it be wrong, as even Catholic noblemen will tell us,
for the Pope to create a domestic spiritual hierarchy for England,
it must also be wrong to exercise the authority which that hier-
archy implies. The hostility to the government did not cease
when the pastorals of Pius were issued ; it was repeated when
Nicholas was " enthroned^'' it will be re-acted when his suffra-
gans enter, if they have not already entered, upon the " adminis-
tration'''' of their sees, and it will be continued by every act of
government that the hierarchy or any part of it exercises.
The Roman Catholic hierarchy, according to every authority
with which we are acquainted, implies the possession and exercise
oi spiritual sovereignty, — not only as residing in his Holiness by
whom the hierarchy is formed, but as existing in the Bishops who
are its head, and, flowing from them, in a humbler degree to
the subordinate members. Hence we read, in the Pastoral of John
of Beverley, that " the Bishops placed at the head, being the images
and vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, possess the plenitude and
perfection of the Christian priesthood; " that "the Episcopacy is
a spiritual sovereignty, and that no Bishop has been, or will be
consecrated, to whom at his consecration a diocese is not then
assigned. Priests and deacons," he adds, " are ordained, without
any subjects being assigned to them, or jurisdiction given to them;
but a Bishop, receiving all the plenitude of the royal priesthood
of Jesus Christ, being His lieutenant on earth, he cannot receive
his episcopal consecration without receiving at the same time that
jurisdiction and spiritual sovereignty which are inseparable from
the episcopal character." These words,' though quoted by Bever-
27
ley from a learned theologian, are cited by him with marked ap-
probation ; we may therefore say, on his testimony, that each of
the twelve Roman Catholic bishops is a spiritual sovereign, with
subjects assigned to him, and claiming jurisdiction over his en-
tire diocese. This shows the signification of " enthronement,"
and the singular propriety of the Cardinal's words, " we govern,
and shall continue to govern, the counties of Middlesex, Hertford,
Essex," &c. He need not bate one iota from the force of this lan-
guage; for, if his suffragan be right, to resign his jurisdiction
would be to renounce his episcopacy. He cannot be a Bishop
without being a spiritual sovereign; he cannot be a sovereign
without having jurisdiction and subjects; and, if he have juris-
diction, it is only bounded by the diocese confided to his care.
This is true of Beverley as well as of Westminster, of Hexham as
well as of Northampton, &c. Each Bishop is a sovereign in his
diocese, and St. Pudentiana is head over all. The power of the
Episcopate he receives " from a superior source, from a compe-
tent authority," that is, from the Pope ; but its exercise begins
when each Bishop takes possession of his see, chair, or throne ;
then, to cite the words of Dr. Wiseman, " he takes possession of
the entire diocese confided to his care,"* or, to be more explicit,
he commences that government which in its essence and in its Ac-
tion invades the Queen's supremacy. If each Bishop takes pos-
session of his entire diocese, he thereby formally excludes from it
every other spiritual authority. As a sovereign he admits of no
equal within the sphere of his government, nor can he recognise
any. To him, in this respect, the Queen is nothing, the govern-
ment are nothing, and the persons appointed by them are only to
be named in the category of beadles and parish-clerks. The newly
appointed Bishops do more than ignore. With them, to deny the
royal supremacy is to assert the papal supremacy; the two are
so one, that we may rightly pass from this to that, or from that
to this. When, therefore, a Bishop enters his see, he must be
understood to deny therein the supremacy of the Crown ; when he
appoints a visitation, delivers a charge, consecrates a church, or
issues a licence, he does the same. Indeed Cardinal Wiseman has
so inseparably linked the assertion of the Pope's prerogative with
a denial of the Queen's, that the mere presence of the hierarchy
amongst us is an unceasing declaration that the Pope, not the
Queen, has spiritual supremacy in this realm of England.
* First Sermon at enthronement.
28
Is there not, therefore, a contest of powers in the working of
the hierarchy, as well as in the Pastorals of Pius? The one sounds
from a distance, the other lives and acts at our own doors ; the
one, if we may so say, is a declaration of war, the other is the war
itself. The invasion of the Queen's authority reaches further than
the mere " scrap of paper" that announced it to the world ; it mul-
tiplies itself by the number of Bishops already enthroned, and it
extends to all and every the acts of their government ; but, like
the ointment on Aaron's head, it must be believed to pass also to
the very skirts of the garment. We are to have a spiritual sove-
reign in each diocese, and one spiritual governor at least, not to
speak of more, in every parish. The Pope has invaded the royal
prerogative by the creation of sees, and the hierarchy begin to
invade the prerogative of parliament by the formation of parishes.
What will be thought by the country of the following announce-
ment, which was made about two months since? ^'' The parish
Priest elect of Gateshead begs to announce that he will say Mass
in the wooden church on Candlemas-day, and solicits the contri-
butions of such kind friends as may wish to aid the good work."
This parish is so far formed, that its spiritual guide is named, if he
be not now already appointed. We must not forget that each
priest receives his mission, as well as his ordination, from the Bi-
shop ; the one has authority, because the other is supposed to
possess it. Hence these so-called parish-priests will act by virtue
of the Bishop's government, and for the same ends ; they, like
him, will assert the papal supremacy and deny the royal supre-
macy. It would be easy, though painful, to write of the several
ways in which this will be done, in the confessional and in the
pulpit, in public and private life, and by the circulation of pam-
phlets teaching the authority of Rome ; but we need not enter upon
these, as the mere existence of a parish-priest of Gateshead, or of
any where else, whose parish is neither formed nor approved by
the legislature, looks like " asserting improperly " the supremacy
of the Pope. The priest, like his Bishop, has territorial spiritual
jurisdiction rvithout personal limit ; that is, he has the oversight
of all places and persons in the parish to which he is appointed.
If this be not " a pretension to supremacy over the realm of Eng-
land," and " a claim to sole and undivided sway," what on earth
can be ? The priest, it is true, does not immure us in prison, for
that he could not do ; he does not " tithe and toll " in the realui
of England, for that, too, were impossible; but, we submit, he
29
goes as far as he can. First the Holy Father claims jurisdiction
over the realm and people of England, by virtue of which he di-
vides the one and assigns the other ; next, his servants, the Bi-
shops, claim jurisdiction, and theirs also is of a double character,
having reference to territory as well as to persons, and implying a
right to subdivide the country so as to form parishes at their plea-
sure ; and then the parish-priests claim territorial as well as per-
sonal jurisdiction, which signifies that they too may divide their
districts for all the piirposes o? parochial government. At first
sight we thought that territorial ^mi^diction merely indicated the
bounds to which a Bishop's rule may extend, which in its very
nature must have some limit; but this was the thought of a mo-
ment, for we soon saw that territorial jurisdiction gives a right to
divide and sub-divide, — to create and re-create parishes, and to
appoint those who shall keep the consciences of the people, and
teach everywhere the supremacy of the Pope.
Whether such right can be lawfully claimed by any one inde-
pendently of the Crown, it is for the country, or rather for the
government to decide. "We have always thought that our right to
possess a foot of land is given us, or at least secured to us, by the
government and the law. We have imagined that without such
security no one could be safe in the tenure of his land ; and then
we have concluded, in our simplicity, that, a fortiori, a power to
govern the country, or any part of it, is and must be derived from
the same source. We have looked to the throne as the fountain
of dignity, of titles, and of all territorial power ; and we have
held, as we now hold, that no prince, prelate, power, or potentate
hath, or ought to have, any territorial jurisdiction whatsoever
without the concurrence, sanction, and authority of govern-
ment. The principle thus asserted is applicable to Roman Ca-
tholic as well as Protestant countries, and to the ministers or
priests of every religious community. Whoever it may be that
asserts a claim to divide and govern the realm of England inde-
pendently of the Throne, his claim ought to be rejected as foreign
to the genius of Christianity, dangerous to the safety of govern-
ment, and hostile to the spirit of our laws. God has given the
mission to convert ; the Throne can alone give territorial rule for
such purposes. The duty of conversion is imperative, as Nicholas
suggests, but it is not to be performed by assuming the functions
of the civil power. The missionary should go on, humbly and
30
perseveringly, propagating the truth and winning the M'anderer to
the faith of Christ ; but his Church should be the Church in
Ephesus, in Smyrna, or in England, till the State consent to be-
come a nursing-father or a nursing-mother : then, and noi till
then, may it be the Church of England, of Smyrna, or of Eph-
esus. In other words, the spiritual power has no territory, and
no territorial rule, except what the secular gives it, any more
than the lay members of the Church have. This was clearly the
principle on which our Roman Catholic forefathers rejected the
claims of the Popes. They had no hostility to the religion of
Rome as such, but they felt that the nation by its senate, or
through its prince, had the sole right to parcel out the country
and appoint its rulers.
The assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the court of Rome
is not all that we have to complain of. Her government implies
laws, and it becomes us to consider carefully what they are, and
by what authority they are sanctioned. If the recent measure af-
fected only the present members of the Church of Rome, with-
out contemplating either the immediate or the ultimate subjection
of the whole empire, we could disregard the canons, whether
found in the Decretals, the Extravag antes, or the Corpus Ju-
ris; but when, as we have seen, it gives present territorial
jurisdiction and the immediate exercise of government over all
- England, we have a right to examine, and an equal right to
complain.
As we enter upon an examination of canon law, almost the
first thought that presents itself is, that the same power which
confers jurisdiction lays down rules for its exercise. This is a
principle of all governments, whether civil or spiritual. If, for
instance, a governor is appointed, he receives certain instructions
that are to guide his proceedings ; he is required to render an ac-
count of his colony or district from time to time, and any matters
in dispute are submitted to the decision of thope by whom he was
commissioned. Now what is thus true in civil government,
equally holds in the Church. Here the authority that appoints,
also promulgates canons, expects that an account be rendered from
every diocese or district, and settles by sovereign authority all
matters of appeal. Whether this be agreeable to all who are con-
cerned in ecclesiastical government, or whether some few would
not break off from the yoke of authority, is not for us to say ; we
31
are now only concerned with the mutual and necessary dependance
of one power on another. If, therefore, the Pope give jurisdic-
tion, his Holiness must also publish laws for the Church's go-
vernment ; he must have accounts sent him of the state of each
see; and to him all questions in dispute must be submitted for
j^w«/ decision. The first seems to lead us naturally to the last,
so that he who begins with Rome, will also land his appeals there.
The civil power may, indeed^ come in to prevent this ; but the man
started for Italy, and it was only a storm that turned him from his
course. Every step we take in our reasoning serves to show us
the importance of the question to be decided on the floor of the
House of Commons. The word jurisdiction may sound sweetly
in the ear of Nicholas, but it tells us of priestly exemption from
civil rule, and of appeals to Italy even against the Throne itself.
Once admit that the Pope is the source of territorial jurisdiction,
and where can we stop ? A logical sequence leads us on step by
step, till we are ever and anon at the Fisherman's gate. But in-
sist, as we ought, that the Queen and the legislature have the sole
power to give territorial jurisdiction, then every law, whether it
affect the Church or the State, must at least be sanctioned by
them. An attempt to govern by any laws which they have not
accepted, is an invasion of their prerogative, and an act that
ought to be punished. But what are the laws by which Nicholas
will govern ? When writing of the establishment of the hierarchy,
his Eminence observes that only two plans were open to the see
of Rome, " Either to issue another and a full constitution, which
would supply all wants, but which would be necessarily compli-
cated and voluminous or the real and complete code of
the Church must be at once extended to the Catholic Church in
England, so far as compatible with its social position." Again :
he says, "The canon law is inapplicable under Vicars-Apostolic ;
and, besides, many points would have to be synodically adjusted,
and without a Metropolitan and suffragans, a provincial synod
was out of the question."*
These statements bring clearly before us the rules by which the
territorial jurisdiction of the new prelates will be guided. They
divide themselves into two classes, — the canon law of the Church,
already rejected by England, and the decisions of provincial sy-
nods, that will be ratified by the Pope. Whether such laws shall
* Appeal, Introduction.
32
be tolerated in the exercise of territorial jurisdiction, must be de-
cided by those in whose hands the interests of the country are
placed. It is not ybr us to say what the law is, or what that law
shall be ; but we may be allowed to say that no laws have hitherto
been recognised which have not received the sanction of some
power in the government. Hence the regulations of the Church,
while agreed upon in convocation,* have been ratified by the Throne
or by the Parliament, or by both. This has been deemed neces-
sary for two reasons ; namely, that nothing may be done injurious
to the government on the one hand, and that nothing may be
enacted which would prove a calamity to the people on the other.
Besides, it seems fitting that whatever is intended for the nation
should have the sanction of the national voice, in whatever way
that is legally expressed. We do not speak of any private so-
ciety ; its regulations concern only the persons who belong to it ;
but when anv institution seeks to become national, it must bow to
the ordinary laws of government. It may be loery convenient for
the Cardinal to eschew the idea of a national Church ; but, if his
Church is intended for the nation, he must politely submit to na-
tional law, and one principle of our constitution is this, — that
England be governed by no laws that the country has not ap-
proved. Will his Eminence submit his canons to such a court ?
Benedict XIV., speaking of canon law, observes that "those
constitutions are properly called canons which bind the whole
Church ; such are those which emanate from the chief Pontiff, or
a General Council. But if the statute of a Bishop be confirmed
by the Pope and extended to the whole Church, then it is proper-
ly termed a canon, as it is now authorized by the Pope."* This
definition deserves, as we hope it will have, the serious attention
of every Englishman. If we would preserve our liberty, there is
nothing that we should guard with more sacred vigilance than our
laws. Other things are important, but law is either our security
or our curse. Now, in the code that the hierarchy seek to apply,
we have no security whatever against arbitrary and injurious
enactments. A canon is not dependent on the civil power, for it
emanates from the Pope, or receives his sanction; it binds the
whole Church because he approves of it, and it is administered by
the Pope's servants. Though coming within the range of civil
• Benedict XIV., De Synod. Dioeces., torn, i., lib. i., cap. iii., sec. iii.,
p. 52; Mechlin., 1842.
33
influence, it takes no account of civil authority, and it binds or is
thought to bind irrespective of any and all the decrees of the state
concerning it. Such are the laws that are now extended to Eng-
land. They were once tried at the bar of public opinion and con-
demned ; but, notwithstanding that condemnation, they are sought
to be covertly introduced again, '-^ so far as compatible with so-
cial position." The importance of some security in ecclesiastical
matters is almost self-evident. If the Government have no control
over the canon law, what can save us from the revival of obnox-
ious statutes ? In saying this we are only taking account of the
follies and failings of human nature. The best of men do wrong,
and priests are not exempt from the faults of humanity. The re-
mark comes to us with increasing force when we remember some
dark pages in papal history, on every one of which a tale of sad-
ness is written. It is not our intention to describe events that
are too sickening for comment; but the past cannot be forgotten.
It speaks to us too loudly of persecution and torture ; and while
ithe name Inquisition remains, we must be forgiven if we cannot
ttrust without security^ or if we decline to put thQ country into
ipapal hands.
Besides, there have been canons of the Church whose natural
and direct action was to disorganize society, and sever the bonds
of social life. Thus, Gregory VII. taught, in his Maxims, that
H* it is lawful for the Pope to depose emperors. The Pope,'* he
said, ''can absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance which
they had taken to a bad prince. His decision no man can reverse ;
but he can set aside all other judgments. He is to be judged by
no man." Again : the third Council of Lateran decreed, that " all
oaths which are adverse to the utility of the Church must in no
wise be performed; but, on the contrary, with whatever solemnity
md apparent good faith they may have been taken, they must be
unscrupulously violated, inasmuch as they are to be deemed pur-
juries rather than oaths."* We read, also, in the Corpus Juris ^
that " Princes' laws, if they be against the canons and decrees of
:he Bishop of Rome, be of no force, nor strength ;" that " all kings,
3ishops, and nobles, that allow or suffer the Bishop of Rome's
iecrees in any thing to be violate, be accursed, and for ever cul-
3able before God, as transgressors of the Catholic faith;" and
• Labb., Concilia, torn, x., Cone. Lat. iii., Can.xvi., col. 1517. Paris, 1671.
C
34
that " the clergy ought to give no oath of fidelity to their tem-
poral governors, except they have temporalities of them."
There can be but one opinion about these principles, or about
the men by whom they were advocated ; both were steeped in
error. Indeed Roman Catholics are ashamed of them, and
Nicholas reminds us that " we must have reference to modern
enactments, declarations, explanations, judgments, tacit repeals
by disuetude, or actual usages and prescriptions." We are
willing to do so, and are ready to grant, for the sake of argu-
ment only, that no unrighteous canon remains; but what theni
Are we therefore to throw aside all guards? Nay, the very fad
that such infamous principles were once acted upon teaches oui
need of the utmost watchfulness, and warns us to allow no inde-
pendent power, especially no foreign prelate or potentate to legis-
late for this realm of England.
But, in our efforts to prevent this legislation, we must look tc
Westminster as well as to Italy; to a domestic as well as a foreigr
antagonism. Referring to the last twelve months. Cardinal Wise-
man informs us that " Catholic churches all over Europe have
been peacefully enjoying the blessing of holding in every province
ecclesiastical councils, to an extent unknown for centuries. Sc
characteristic," he adds, " has this frequency of such sacred assem-
blies been of the period, that it has been aptly remarked, that il
may well be distinguished in future Church history as the period
of Synods." The benefit of such ecclesiastical assemblies is, il
appears, to be extended to us. We are to be favoured with theii
pomp, their decrees, and their influence ; that is, unless the
Government step in to prevent. It is impossible for us to sa}
before-hand what points will " require to be adjusted by a sy no-
dical assembly," but they will, no doubt, be points of infinite
importance ; some of them will be purely Catholic, but all wil
not be so. The pastors of the church of Rome will find it hard
in the midst of politics, to touch upon no political question, and
to give not even a glance at government measures. They will be
led on, as if by instinct, to *' play a part in the game of nations ; '
and we shall find them condemning Anglican measures, as al
Thurles, and perhaps saying, as they did there, '' the Judge has
spoken, and controversy is at an end." If these persons wen
acting only in a private capacity, they would have a right to ex-
35
press an opinion on any local or national measure ; so, if they
were seeking only the spiritual guidance of their own people, they
might guard thera against what would he injurious. But, claim-
ing authority as they do over all the haptized, and assuming
tei-ritorial spiritual government, we deny alike their right to
assemble and their right to decree.
The decrees of a Roman Catholic synod would come to us with
the same authority as a canon decreed by a conclave at Home.
Both would be priestly decisions, would be sanctioned by the
authority of the Pope, and would violate the principle already
stated, that " England be governed by no laws which the nation
does not approve." Besides the decision of a synod would have
this aggravating circumstance, that it would directly aflfect local
matters, and might interfere with the free action of the state.
The same reasons, then, that lead us to reject a. foreign legislation
for England, lead us to reject any independent domestic legis-
lation ; both set up a legislature to rival the government, and
both are likely to enact laws adverse to British interests. If it
be dangerous for any one to apply laws that are unsanctioned by
government, what can be said of an assembly convened to enact
such laws ; or of men whose business it is to see that they are
executed? If an independent statute-book be an evil, an inde-
pendent legislature cannot be a good.
We have endeavoured to show that, according to true princi-
ples of government, ecclesiastics as such have no right whatever
to territorial rule ; and yet, on the ground of that right, they pro-
pose to meet in synod. Their assembly is to be as independent
as their government ; their decisions are to go forth stamped with
no English authority, and they are to be effective just as far as
circumstances will allow. We submit, that the same necessity
which requires that all laws for territorial government should be
sanctioned by the Crown, demands, also, that the assembly by
which those laws are made should be subject to the same rule ;
and there can be no such subjection without a power to convene
or dismiss, and to annul or ratify its acts. The possible conse-
quences of such an assembly, if there were nothing else, must
show its impropriety. It may be held at Westminster, near if
not within sight of the Parliament-house. While the legislature
of the country sits in council, — convened by the authority of the
Queen, bound to her by the most solemn oaths, and submitting
c 2
36
every thing to her royal consent ; another meeting will be held,
called together by the authority of the Pope, — presuming to con-
sult and legislate for the government of England, at the same time
most explicitly denying the authority of the Queen. We can have
no security that these arrogant ecclesiastics (they must forgive the
term) will have any English partialities, — indeed they need not be
British subjects. The same matters may be discussed both in
Synod and Parliament, opposite conclusions arrived at, and hence
hostile action may follow, — the one sanctioned by our gracious
Queen, the hostile action stamped by the Fisherman's ring. Let
any one say if the contest between the civil and ecclesiastical
powers can be more marked than this. It begins with the
assumption of ^(^rriVorm/ jurisdiction, to which no one has a right
without the donation of the Crown ; it exercises that jurisdiction
by an invasion of the Queen's prerogative in the creation of dio-
ceses, and by an invasion of the prerogative of parliament in the
formation of parishes ; and then it sets up a rival legislature, sub-
ject to no civil authority, and under no acknowledged control
from the country, the government, or the Queen. Hence are to
proceed the local regulations that are to govern, for spiritual pur-
poses, the realm of England. This is the authority that shall de-
nounce and try to render useless whatever can, by Jesuit construc-
tion, be made to bear on spiritual things. By all this are we
taught that the Pope has transferred the see of Canterbury to
Westminster, and the see of London to Southwark.
But " on the ground of the Protestant oaths it follows," says
Nicholas, " that according to them the Pope's acts are mere nul-
lities, and are reputed to have no existence. It is as though the
Pope had not spoken, and had not issued any document." He
would, therefore, urge us to treat the aggression as a harmless
thing. It may be worth observing, that the Cardinal does not
say the acts of the Pope are mere nullities. This he ought to have
done, if his reasoning were to be effective ; for the fact of persons
imagining him to have no jurisdiction does not alter the nature
o^ positive actions, nor does it make an infringement of the royal
prerogative less open to censure. If all the world were to deny
that the Pope hath any jurisdiction in this realm of England, it
would not alter one tittle the nature or the offence of what he
has just done. The actions of the Pope, we grant, are not effec-
tive inlaw; but we judge of things by their tendencies as well as by
37
their present results, and we do not wait till they become effective
before we oppose them. The priesthood may not have the power
to make their canons of force in law, or to perfect their system in
all its civil and ecclesiastical relations ; they may not yet be able
to exert unchecked dominion, to give the law alike to prince and
serf, or to hurl the thunders of anathema against those who op-
pose them, but the tendency to this is manifest. The Roman
power is cunningly supposed to be a nullity ; treat it as such, and
it will become a withering influence.
What less than this can be implied in the illustrations of the
restored hierarchy that Roman Catholics have used ? It is com-
pared to our Lord coming forth from his tomb. What can such a
comparison imply, — not to mention the blasphemy that this lan-
guage must ever contain ? The resurrection of Christ was a tri-
umph over every form of opposition, whether from earth, hell, or
death ; it was a vindication of the Saviour's claim to be the Lord
both of the dead and the living ; and it was preparatory to his
cession at the right hand of God, on the throne of the Universe,
and far above all rule, all authority and power. Now to which of
these particulars is the "restoration" of the hierarchy like?
Does it resemble the first, so that Cardinal Wiseman's advent
among us strikes down in alarm all who have witnessed it ? This
may be desired, but we are not yet convulsed with fear. Does it
resemble the second, so that the Pope's division of England into
dioceses is a proclamation of his power over all mankind, over
the living and the dead ? This we take it to be; but if so, what
becomes of the cry of no aggression ? Does the appointment of
the hierarchy indicate the third ; namely, an entrance upon domi-
nion said to have been given by Christ ? It certainly points to
this, and is intended to secure it. The Roman Church aims at
sole, undivided, and absolute sway ; she would judge every thing,
and be judged by no one. Her claim is insolent, arrogant, and
un-English. We speak of the act, and not of the spirit that dic-
tated it.
If the recent aggression be what we have named, it matters
little whether Westminster or Bloomsbury confer a title ; yet the
connexion of his Eminence with Westminster shows that the city
was designed to give dignity to the Cardinal. We cannot say
that Westminster was chosen in order that the assembling of a
synod might act more powerfully on the Throne and on the Par*
38
liament, and thus hasten the return of the Abbey into its so-called
Abbot's hands. If it were, there would be nothing unnatural in
this. It would only be choosing the best place to accomplish
desired ends. But are we, therefore, to be silent, while Rome
works insidiously or openly, as may best suit her purpose ? Shall
we be gentle and yielding till incense again wave within the
Abbey walls ? till Romish prelates proceed to the Upper House
with ancient pomp ? till mass open the sittings of both branches
of the legislature, and a prelate, not a peer or commoner, direct
the affairs of state? Are we in love with such things? Did
Rome rule so wisely, that we would again run into her arms ?
Were her measures always so liberal that she must now be called
the herald of freedom, and invited to guide the destiny of the
freest nation upon earth? Has she always advocated liberty of
conscience and Christian rights ? Has she always taught the un-
righteousness of persecution, the folly of attempting to infuse
faith by torture and the sword, and the execrableness of consign-
ing helpless females to an inquisition, whose only fault was that
they loved their brothers and their husbands too well to betray
them ? Has she done all these, so that we may now trust her to
fight the battle of humanity, and promote brotherly kindness,
gentleness, and love? Nay : the work must be in other hands:
England cannot trust her.
But we must examine the reasons urged by Nicholas in favour
of the measure. Till this is done, we have failed to do either him
or ourselves justice. Besides, to pass by his arguments would be
construed into an acknowledgment of their force, — an acknow-
ledgment that we are not prepared to make. They are specious
but not conclusive, and they touch upon every thing that can be
said in favour of aggression, yet they fail to convince us either
that the hierarchy is right, or that it ought to be allowed.
IV. The "re-establishment of the hierarchy" not effected
with perfect openness.
His Eminence assures us, in the introduction to his Appeal,
that " the restoration of the hierarchy " was no secret, wanton, or
sudden act, but a measure gradually and undisguisedly matured,
*' All Catholics," he says, " knew of the intended measure, the
papers announced it ; and so notorious was it, that the Dean and
39
Chapter of Westminster petitioned parliament against it; it found
its way into Battersby's Directory of 1 848, and was notified to
the Post-office authorities on the cover of a letter." We wish it
were possible to receive this as an exact account of what preceded
the Cardinal's appointment. It is always painful to suspect, es-
pecially where religion is concerned, and we should rejoice if it
were easy to believe that the Roman priesthood have, in this in-
stance, been open as the day, and that there has been nothing
behind the scenes, — no pretence of political measures in order to
acquire spiritual influence, no use of spiritual authority to secure
political ends, and no latent insidiousness of which the country
has cause to complain. But, unfortunately, we cannot think this.
As we are not informed on the exact policy by which the Roman
priesthood were guided prior to the passing of Emancipation in
1 829, or on the nature of the returns that have been made to
Rome by Vicars-Apostolic for the last 150 years, particularly
during the last twenty years, it is impossible for us to fix upon
this or that act of secrecy or intrigue, — all anticipating and has-
tening the recent aggression ; but can we doubt that the priest-
hood have been playing their part with English statesmen and
with English liberty ? "The Catholics," says Nicholas, "have
followed and honoured liberalism." Whatever feeling there may
be on the part of Roman Catholic laymen, there is little sympathy
with true liberality among the priesthood of Rome. They sanc-
tion it no longer than it serves their interest, and their approba-
tion is the surest token that liberty will be overthrown. If they
."follow and honour," it is only to push liberalism to undue
lengths, — to make her measures a stepping-stone for advance-
ment, and then with her downfall to enthrone themselves. Is not
this precisely what the priesthood have done, or tried to do in
this country ? They have tracked the path of liberty from spot to
spot, they have pleaded her interests to obtain for their order even
greater licence than others desire or ask, and now, standing side
by side with liberty, they seek to enslave her and her children.
This will explain the "indignation" expressed in the Premier's
letter, as well as the charge of " insidiousness."
Tt) us there is something more than inexplicable in the " open-
ness" of which the Cardinal boasts. First it begins, if at all,
* about three years since^ after an under-current had been flow-
ing for some years ; then the openness is seen in an acknowledged
40
error on the cover of a letter, and in Battersby's Directory, to
which, knowing it to be a mistake, the country was not likely to
give much heed. The only things that are clearly open are the
petition of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, which might be
thought to result from needless alarm ^ and the representations
made to Lord Minto, of which we have no official information.
We are not led to make these remarks by a desire to suspect with-
out reason, or to aggravate unduly the aggression of the Church
of Rome, but in consequence of a strange inconsistency between
the language of Roman Catholics and what Dr. Wiseman puts
forth as the facts of the case. He tells us that *' all Catholics
knew of the intended measure," and yet in his Pastoral from
Rome he says, " If our parting were in sorrorv, and we durst not
hope that we should again face to face behold you, our beloved
flock, so much the greater is now our consolation and joy," &c...
Here are two statements: first, that his Eminence left his people
with sorrow ; and secondly, that he durst not hope to return to
them, both which it is difficult for us to reconcile with any known
certainty of the Cardinal's return. He was about to become their
Archbishop, and yet, we are told, he sorrowed at going to be
made so. Every one knew, it is said, and no doubt Nicholas
did, that a few months would bring him to England honoured
with a Cardinal's hat, or, at least as the Primate of all England,
yet he durst not hope to return. We cannot imagine that Dr.
Wiseman was ignorant of the decisions at Rome, and we can only
explain his language by supposing that tlie people did not know,
and that it was needful to plead ignorance before them.
But all Catholics knew of the intended measure ! Let us see
if they did. On turning to page 35 in part vi. of ' the Lamp,'
we find a paragraph headed " Dr. Wiseman's elevation to the
Cardinalate." The writer, after referring to the loss the Roman
Catholics in England had sustained by the call of the Doctor tq
Rome, proceeds to write thus of his successor: '-'• He must have
a successor. But that successor^ as far as circumstances admit,
will be worthy of the vacant chair We are at ease about
the successor of Dr. Wiseman. He may not possess the same
amount of learning, for what man in Europe does ? But he will
not the less wisely build upon the foundation so skilfully laid by
his great, and deeply regretted predecessor." In another number
of the same periodical, published a fortnight later than that from
41
which we have just quoted, and when matters were far advanced
at Rome, we find (on page 377) an article headed " Who shall be
successor to Bishop Wiseman ? " We do not stop to consider the
title of this article, though it compels a conviction that Dr.
Wiseman's return was neither generally known, nor generally
expected, but hasten to its contents. The remarks of the writer
are full to our purpose, and show either that the Cardinal is
wrong, or that the journalists, whether priests or laymen, are as
crafty as their teachers. " At first sight," he says, *' the removal
of Dr. Wiseman would appear as a misfortune ; but that cannot
be. He has left his late position in the Church merely to fill a
post in which his great powers will contribute more to the
interests of Catholicity in general, and we have not the remotest
doubt that the authority which removed him will take anxious
and judicious care to appoint a fitting successor. We feel
this," he observes, *' yet we cannot divest ourselves, there is not
a Catholic in Great Britain who can divest himself, of a deep
anxiety relative to the successor of Cardinal Wiseman." All
this sounds very strange, if every one knew that his Eminence
was to return. Why talk of misfortune, of Dr. Wiseman's succes-
sor, or of the deep anxiety of Catholics about it ? There could
be neither anxiety nor misfortune: but perhaps the ignorance was
confined to Richardson's offices ; others might know all that the
Cardinal has told us, though they did not ! As if to satisfy us
on this point also, the writer of the article proceeds to combat
the sneers of " men, less charitable than bold," about the "am-
bition of the Episcopate " felt by Catholic priests. The question
of a successor had become so general a subject of debate as to
excite ridicule, — indeed the thing went so far, that Dr. Gillis of
Edinburgh was naraied among others as Dr. Wiseman's successor.
The writer in ' the Lamp ' speaks of the Doctor's merits, and then
adds, '* should his Holiness translate Dr. Gillis to London, Eng-
land shall have little cause to mourn the loss of his predecessor."
Now what can all this mean ? Roman Catholics either did, or
they did not know of " the restoration of the hierarchy " and the
return of Dr. Wiseman. If they did not, as the foregoing ex-
tracts would seem to imply, then the Cardinal's pretence of
openness falls to the ground ; if they did, as the Doctor asserts,
then we have the most perfect piece of deception on the pages of
* the Lamp ' that was ever practised. Let his Eminence choose
42
which alternative he pleases. Either he has deceived us, or ' the
Lamp,' and all the persons who named a successor, particularly
those who spoke of Dr. Gillis, have tried to impose upon us. We
cannot wonder that the Premier and the country are '* indignant"
while they are " surprised."
V. The " re-establishment of the hierarchy *' not justified
by the Emancipation Act.
The frankness of the priesthood is not the only point his Emi-
nence has to urge. He appeals to our own statute-book, and re-
minds us that the act of Emancipation and other lesser acts are
found there. In arguing from Catholic emancipation, the Cardi-
nal draws his remarks from two sources ; first, from what eman-
cipation allows ; and secondly, from what it forbids. Both these,
he thinks, show the aggression to be lawful, and that we have,
therefore, no right to prevent its taking place. *' By the act of
Catholic Emancipation," says Dr. Wiseman, " preceded and fol-
lowed by many others of lesser magnitude, the Catholics of the
British empire were admitted to complete toleration; that is, were
made as free as any other class of persons to profess and prac-
tise their religion in every respect." And " if the law," as
Lord Lyndhurst observed, *' allowed the doctrines and discipline
of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be allowed to be carried
on perfectly and properly." True : but what does all this prove ?
We agree with Nicholas in his premises, but we deliberately and
entirely deny his consequence. The Catholics of the British
empire have been made as free as any other class of persons, but
not freer than any other class is, or desires to be. They are free
to profess and practise their religion in every respect, but not
free to interfere with, derange, and interrupt the profession and
practice of others. We would not, for a moment, step in between
the Roman Catholic and his worship ; let him serve God as he
pleases, and avail himself of that teaching which he finds most
consoling to his mind, — nay, more, as Lord Lyndhurst suggests,
let his religion be carried on, within its own limits, perfectly and
properly, that he may have all the comfort he can secure in life,
and all the joy he hopes for in death. We would not rob the
Roman Catholic of any thing, — of any thing of authority over
himself, of any thing of instruction from his teacher, or of any
thing of comfort from their ministry ; but, at the same time, we
43
look for and demand that the Roman Catholic do not molest us.
His Eminence evidently attaches much weight to the words of
Lord Chancellor Lyndhiirst, and they deserve it, both on account
of his talents and his position; but his words are unfortunately
wrested by Nicholas from their true meaning. The Lord Chan-
cellor was speaking of the internal action of the Church of Rome,
and advocating the repeal of an act against the introduction of a
papal Bull into England. He had no reference whatever to either
the theory or the practice of developement to which the Cardinal ap-
plies his words. He looked to action within^ not without the Church
of Rome, and it was as if he said, " You allow the Church of Rome
to exist among you ; let its memhers have their perfect doctrine
and discipline, — that is, let it be carried on perfectly and properly."
Lord Lyndhurst was, we contend, speaking of something entirely
within the Church of Rome, not to any extension to persons or to
places without that Church : to apply his language to the latter,
is to make the learned Chancellor say what he did not intend. In
quoting Lord Lyndhurst's words his Eminence has made an alte-
ration that quite suits his purpose. We will not say he designed
to do this, or that the change was more than an oversight ; but,
whether intended or not, it makes a most important difference in
his Lordship's meaning. On page 13 of the Appeal, the Lord
Chancellor's words are given thus : " If the law allowed the doc-
trines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be
allowed to be carried on perfectly and properly :" on the next
page they are "if it should be allowed to be carried out
perfectly and properly." Now " carried ow," and '* carried out,''*
are two obviously very different things. To carry on the doc-
trines and discipline of the Roman Church perfectly and properly,
is simply to teach the one and administer the other, and to be
allowed to do this within the sphere of the Church's action^ —
that is, to the extent of toleration granted to Protestants. To
carry out perfectly the doctrines and discipline of the Roman
Church, is to carry both out to their immediate and ultimate con-
sequences. Lord Lyndhurst sought the former, but not the lat-
ter. The country had allowed a religion with bishops, priests,
and deacons ; yet she retained a statute forbidding all Bulls from
Rome, without which bishops could not be created, or at least
could not be appointed. Now this tended to derange internal
action, and prevented the religion from being carried on perfectly
44
and properly. The Lord Chancellor sought to remedy the griev-
ance, but he did not wish to carry out the doctrine and disci-
pline of the Church of Eome. That would require the entire
surrender of our Protestant liberties, and the loss of blessings that
were purchased by our martyrs' blood. To carry out perfectly
the discipline of the Church of Rome, each church must be re-
signed into papal hands, every oracle, whether Anglican or Dis-
senting, save that of Rome, must be dumb ; all our Bibles must
be closed, except when a priest permits us to open them ; the
Queen must bow to the supremacy of Pius, and England must be-
come a fief of Rome. This is carrying out the doctrines and dis-
cipline of Popery, and certainly no such perfection was or could
be desired by the Lord High Chancellor of England.
But Catholic emancipation is thought to favour the hierarchy
by what it forbids, as well as in what it allows. " The law," says
his Eminence, *' did put on a restriction. The act of Emancipa-
tion forbids any one from assuming or using the style or title of
any bishopric or archbishopric of the Established Church in
England or Ireland. Now," he adds, " if the law of Emancipa-
tion did make one exclusion and prohibition respecting the titles
of Catholic bishops, it thereby permitted, as perfectly within law,
whatever in that respect came not under the exception." True,
in that respect it permitted; but in what respect? Only in that of
" name, style, or title;" and it permitted this only in the sense of
making no distinct provision against it. Is the restoration of the
hierarchy merely a name? If it be, we have little to say against it,
except on the ground of territory ; if it be not, a legal axiom can-
not oblige us to permit it. A principle of law may serve as de-
fence in a court of justice, where every thing must be determined
by distinct statement, but it cannot calm the public mind. All
will perceive that the prohibition of Anglican titles was never in-
tended to legalize any or every other title that might be assumed.
**The restrictive clause," said the Duke of Wellington, as quoted
by Nicholas, " was no security ; but it would give satisfaction to
the United Church of England and Ireland. He was aware," he
said, " that this clause gave no security in any way, but it was in-
serted to give satisfaction to those who were disturbed by this
assumption of title by the Catholic clergy." The clause was to
give satisfaction to Protestants, yet, according to the Cardinal, it
was to do so by telling Roman Catholic bishops, you may take
any title you please, only do not fix upon an Anglican title. A
strange way, we think, to calm our fears ! But the Duke of Wel-
lington gives us another reason for introducing the restriction.
*' According to the laws of England," he observes, *' the title of a
diocese belonged to a person appointed to it by his Majesty ; but
it was desirable that others appointed to it by an assumed autho-
rity should be discountenanced, and that was the reason why the
clause was introduced." Here we are told the true reason and
object of inserting the clause in question. The object was to dis-
countenance the appointment to a see by an assumed authority ;
and the reason for this was, that, according to English law, the
title of a diocese belongs to a person appointed to it by the Crown.
We must observe that His Grace did not speak of particular dio-
ceses, such as those mentioned in the inserted clause, but of a
diocese, without any limitation ; as if he had said, *' According to
English law, no one has a right to appoint to a diocese but the
Crown ; we, therefore, discountenance any other appointments '*
This touches and condemns the recent aggression, so that the au-
thority of the Duke of Wellington, as well as that of Lord Lynd-
hurst, fails his Eminence. Indeed the prohibition of Anglican
titles, so far from giving an implied right to create dioceses, or
assign territory, or appoint persons to govern it, is in itself ano-
ther declaration that in this matter the Pope of Rome hath no
jurisdiction in this realm of England ; and it was intended to calm
ous fears, by declaring that the Sovereign alone can give, or
ought to give, the title of a diocese, and by discountenancing any
appointment to a see by an assumed authority.
** There is an axiom in law," says Nicholas, " that runs thus :
Exclusio unius, est admissio alterius ; that is, if you specifi-
cally exclude or deny the use of one particular thing, you thereby
admit the lawful use of that which is not denied.'"* This, he
thinks, is quite to his purpose, for he argues, " If, in giving a
person leave to build a house on my land, I stipulated that he
should not use sand-stone, it would imply that he might employ
granite, or lime-stone, or any other stone but the one excluded ;
so, if we are forbidden to use the style or title of any bishop or
archbishop of the Established Church, it follows that we are al-
lowed to assume any other titles.''^ It is clear that this whole rea-
soning extends only to the question of titles, not to all that is
* Appeal, p. 15.
46
implied in a Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. If there had
been only style or title in the case, his Eminence might possibly
have taken his name with as little reproach as was heaped on Dr.
Dillon. He might have been as uninterrupted as Moravian bi-
shops are now; but there is something more than " style or title "
about the Cardinal's hat, something more than *' style or title "
about '* territorial jurisdiction," and something more than '* style
or title" about the formation of parishes, &c. The illustration
drawn by Nicholas from an agreement for building, fails in an
important point. The exclusion of sand-stone in my agreement
with the householder, might leave him at liberty to employ gra-
nite, lime-stone, or any other stone not excluded, but it would not
give him licence to employ such stones in raising a fortification
from which to desolate my estate. Now this is precisely what the
Church of Rome has done. A denial of the right to have bishops
with Anglican titles, implied, of course, that they might have
bishopSj but it did not authorize them, even by implication, to
raise a hierarchy by which to overthrow the existing state of
things, and scatter to the winds the very constitution by which
they had been relieved.
We have assumed, throughout this reasoning, that the Cardi-
nal's axiom will serve him in a court of law, because it is not for
us to decide the matter either one way or the other ; but to us, the
use made of the axiom by his Eminence appears inadmissible on
several accounts. A thing not specifically condemned may yet be
unlawful, because it trenches on some part of the Constitution ;
or something lawful in itself may yet, from the circumstances with
which it has been connected, be righteously denounced. This,
we submit, is the case in the question before us. The preroga-
tives of the throne and the government have been touched and
invaded, and in the manner, as well as the act, there has been *' an
assumption of power over the realm of England and a claim to
sole and undivided sway " that ought to secure for the measure
the denunciation of all Englishmen. But, besides this, the use
made by Nicholas of the clause in the act of Emancipation involves
consequences that are dangerous to the true action of the royal
authority. Should the denial of Anglican titles to Roman Catholic
bishops imply that they may assume a7i^ other titles, then the
Queen is virtually prevented from creating such sees as Her
Majesty may choose. For example : if it were agreed in council
47
to create a see of Westminster, his Eminence would stand in the way,
and say, " May it please your Majesty, you must not come here,
or the law will be broken." So of Southwark, of Northampton,
of Hexham, of Beverley, of Liverpool, of Salford, of Shrewsbury,
of Clifton, of Plymouth, of Menavia, of Nottingham, and of Bir-
mingham ; and the same will be true of any future division that
his Holiness may make. If her Majesty should wish to give an
Anglican title from a place that may happen to confer a title on a
Romish bishop, either the Queen must forego her right, and the
see not be created , or, if the law be kept, a legal contest must
commence, or his Eminence must politely retire. Can an inference
from the act of Emancipation be sound that leads to such conse-
quences ? Rome is not usually so submissive to civil authority as
to bow whenever the royal will is expressed ; we could not hope,
therefore, that the Cardinal would retire, and we should be left
either to a legal contest^ or to the humiliation of having the
Cabinet controlled in its deliberation and in its action by the
presence and influence of a Roman Catholic priest.
But, after all, can we consistently resist this aggression ? Have
we not conceded so much to the priesthood, that they have a
right to expect this further privilege ? Whatever answers may be
returned to these questions by different parties in the state, it is
manifest that the country will not go back to priestly rule. We
would not speak disparagingly of the Christian Ministry. The
office is sacred, and when its duties are discharged, it brings with
it the smile of Heaven and the esteem of the Church ; but when
any persons arrogate to themselves the right to be our sole, our
infallible guides, and add to this a claim to govern, without let or
hindrance, in whatever they call spiritual, they are dangerous to
society, to its freedom, and to its healthy government. If, there-
fore, we had granted more than we have to Romish priests, there
must be some point at which to stop, and there can be no reason
in saying you have gone so far, therefore you must go further :
rather, our having granted so much renders a request for further
concession the more unreasonable. The fact that our Roman
Catholic brethren had no cause to complain, and that their priest-
hood were as free as any Christian ministers in the land, enables
us to say, without injustice, " here shall your proud waves
be staid."
We submit, however, to those who are able to judge, that there
48
is no natural connexion between the Emancipation of 1 829, and,
what is asserted to be a consequence of it, the hierarchy of 1850.
Cardinal Wiseman, in his Appeal to the people, affirms there is ;
and various writers, in their defence of the aggression, as well as
many Protestants in their denunciation of it, have assumed that
there is some indissoluble oneness between 1829 and 1850. Hence
"Romanists contend, on the one hand, that the hierarchy ought to
be allowed ; and Protestants argue, on the other, that the Emanci-
pation act must be repealed, and that we shall have no peace till
this is done. Let his Eminence be careful how he seeks to con-
vince us that Popery is so hostile to liberty, that the people
cannot be free without the priesthood abusing it. If he succeed,
he may yet have to regret his triumph.
But we are unwilling to allow that the recent aggression is an
integral part of Catholic Emancipation. The two are so entirely
distinct, that the difference need only be named, we think, to be
acknowledged. The Emancipation had reference to the laity, this
wholly to the priesthood ; the former, as an act of justice, gave
to Roman Catholic laymen the same political freedom as their
neighbours ; the latter, as a matter of Italian policy, seeks to
extend the dominion and authority of the priests : the one was
accompanied by the most solemn declarations that no design was
intended on the integrity of the constitution in Church and state ;
the other is plainly devised to overturn the present state of things,
and bring us again under the yoke of Rome.
" Toleration," said some Roman Catholics on January 8th,
1829, "toleration rightly understood, is all we ask for by our
petitions. But what is toleration," they added, " when the word
is rightly understood ? If after a government has adopted a
particular religion, decreed its mode of worship to be observed in
its churches, and suitably provided for its functionaries from the
funds of the state, it leaves the non-conformist in complete
possession of all his civil rights or liberties, — the non-conformist
enjoys a complete toleration." This, then, according to the
testimony of Roman Catholics, was all they sought in 1829;
namely, to be in complete possession of all their civil rights or
liberties. But how did Protestants understand the matter ? If
we ascertain on the one hand what Roman Catholics sought, and
on the other how the Protestants of England understood their
claims, we shall see the real nature of Emancipation, and how far
49
it does or does not bear on the present case. Lord John Russell,
in a letter to the secretary of the Devon County Club, dated
Woburn Abbey, 10th January, 1829, thus described the nature of
Roman Catholic claims: " The Roman Catholics," he said, "ask
for no supremacy whatever; they do not ask to disturb the ascend-
ancy of the Church of England; they do not petition for any pri-
vilege or endowment for their own.Church. What they do ask is,
that Roman Catholic laymen may he eligible to offices by the
King, and to seats in Parliament through the people, equally
with other classes of His Majesty's subjects." The testimony of
Lord John Russell is the more important in this matter, as he
carefully examined the subject, entered into it with all the energy
of his mind, and "promoted to the utmost of his power the
claims of Roman Catholics to all civil rights." It was with his
Lordship a question of civil rights ; so the ministry of the day
understood it, and so it was described, as we have seen, by Roman
Catholics themselves. Whatever was intended by the priesthood
who were behind the scenes, nothinor was further from the thoughts
of our Protestant statesmen than to give any supremacy whatever
to the priests of Rome, or to disturb in the least the institutions
of Protestant England. They distinctly stated this again and
again, and Roman Catholics affirmed that such things were equally
foreign from their memorials. The question was a political one
in the petitions that asked for it, in the speeches that advocated it,
and in the act by which it was granted. Both those who sought
and those who gave, declared it to be a matter affecting only the
civil rights of Roman Catholic laymen. What connexion this has
with the recent aggression, what connexion that in any sense
compels us to allow the one because we have granted the other, we
leave for the country to decide. To us the two are as different as
the polling at an election and the enthronement of St. Puden-
tiana, as different as a seat in the House of Commons and a place
in the confessional of a Priest.
There will, no doubt, be much diflference of opinion about the
policy of 1829 ; it will form a ground of complaint both in the
legislature and out of it ; but let us not forget that we are indebted
to that policy for the force with which we shall be able to main-
tain our position, and for the support we shall have from Roman
Catholic laymen. But for the Act of Emancipation, we could not
have expected either the Duke of Norfolk, or Lord Camoys, or
D
50
Lord Beaumont to have been with us ; we could not have hoped
for the co-operation of Roman Catholic commoners, or indeed for
the assistance of any of the Roman Catholic laity : heart-burn-
ings, indignation, and a conviction of wrong would have met us
at every turn ; political questions would have mixed themselves
up with those of religion ; the wants of the people would have
advanced to second the pretensions of the clergy, and we might
have trembled for the result. But as things are, the Roman
Catholic people have nothing to complain of, for they are as free
as their brethren of the Protestant faith. They may, perhaps,
identify themselves with the present discussion, but our contro-
versy is not with them. We do not bate one tittle of our regard
for them, or of our purpose to maintain their just rights; and
many of them will feel and acknowledge this. Thus the measure
of 1829 simplifies our controversy, shows it to be not a question
of liberty, but one of priestly rule, and smoothes our way to the
determination that the Queen, and the Queen only, shall be su-
preme in this realm of England.
VI. The ** re-establishment of the hierarchy" not excused
by any liberal measures of government.
It is not, however, by permission of his Eminence that we draw
any comfort from the past. He would rather make it a thorn in
our side, and throw it among us as an apple of discord. With
this view the appeal touches, of course " apart from any party
feelings! " upon whatever has caused dissension for the last twenty
years. It conducts us to the Senate and to Dublin, to the Colo-
nies and to Gal way ; and in each place it tries, by some mention
of the past, to invoke a spirit of discord, and fan into a flame the
smouldering embers of political partisanship. It seems a part of
Romish policy to bend every thing to the object Rome has in
view ; and in this respect, as in others. Dr. Wiseman is true to his
holy mother. Her glory is the centre, to which in his eye every
thing tends, and that before which all things else must fall.
Hence restraint or emancipation, kindness or unkindness, taunts
or politeness, serve his purpose. Thus, if a clergyman taunt
Vicars- Apostolic, it is "a point of no light weight to have his
sarcasm silenced ; " and if the government are liberal, they are
supposed to invite, as with open arms, the advent of Nichola*.
51
The Cardinal, referring to various '* lesser acts " of govern-
ment since the Emancipation, tells us that they *' led him and
others to believe that no reasonable objection could exist to
the restoration of the hierarchy in England." As the consti-
tution and the law were thought to present no difficulty, so the
priesthood imagined that there could be no objection in reason,
after what the Government and the Throne had done. It is for-
tunate for us that the priesthood are not the only judges in this
matter: others can think as well as they, and it may perhaps ap-
pear that there is no just or reasonable connexion bjptween all that
ministers have done and the recent papal aggression. It is the
more important to show this, as the past may become the watch-
word of party, and be made injurious to our Protestant interests.
The instances of liberality adduced by the Cardinal divide
themselves into three classes, each of which will have to be ex-
plained according to its own principles. It will not, therefore,
be necessary to follow his Eminence into an examination of every
act of forbearance on the part of government : that would be te-
dious and could answer no good end. It will be enough to speak
generally of the forbearance shown towards Roman Catholic
bishops, of the allowance of territorial titles in Ireland and else-
where, and of the pecuniary help afforded to the Church of Rome.
As to the first of these : It cannot be denied that the principles
advocated in previous sections of this pamphlet have been violated
in Ireland as well as in England, in Australia as well as in Ire-
land, in America as well as in Australia, and in the East as well as
in the West. We have no wish to conceal this fact. The Romish
priesthood have acted, as his Eminence tells us, in direct violation
of the law ; they have taken the titles borne by Protestant bishops,
they have assumed territorial jurisdiction without permission of the
Crown, and they have gone so far as to counteract and render
useless some important measures of government ; but these ad-
missions do not surely make their case better, — rather, they tell
the extent to which Rome will go if she can. That the Ministers
of the day, whether liberal or conservative, have allowed this to
go unpunished, is an instance of forbearance, not an evidence of
love for Papal rule. The authority of law is not usually exercised
without the sternest necessity ; it passes by mucb, where condem-
nation would offend a large portion of the people, and it allows
things to pass uncensured, when the effect of punishment would
D 2
52
be more fatal to the public interest than impunity. To deny this
licence to a government, is to refuse them the power to govern at
all ; for it would be impossible to exercise any authority without
overlooking much that we could wish did not exist. Where is
the person, either in public or in private life, who has not often
thought it better to endure than to seek a remedy ? and who has
not thought it wisdom to suffer a small evil, rather than produce
a greater? Apply these remarks to Ireland with its Roman Ca-
tholic population, and to the Colonies, peopled to a great extent
by Roman Catholic emigrants, and we shall see a reason for what
has been allowed. But, surely, this does not destroy our objec-
tion to a hierarchy in England, or our right to object. That we
have allowed some attack on our frontiers can be no reason why
we should suffer the country to be sacked ; rather, the exercise of
Roman power in Ireland and the Colonies may be an obstacle to
its encouragement here, and may make us more loud in protesting
that *' the Pope of Rome " ought to have " no jurisdiction in this
realm of England.'*
But, secondly, the territorial titles of some Roman Catholic
Bishops have been allowed by successive governments. Referring
to this, the Cardinal tells us that the hierarchy had been " recog-
nised and royally honoured in Ireland," and that the titles of some
Roman Catholic bishops had been admitted into legal instruments.
It is difficult not to perceive that this allusion to the past is un-
gracious, if it be not also ungrateful. When the hierarchy was
honoured, it was an act of condescension on the part of the Queen ;
when that hierarchy was recognised, it was an act of courtesy on
the part of government, — and both were intended to heal the
wounds of unhappy Ireland. The country had been long torn
by internal dissension, and nothing but firmness, blended with the
kindest policy, could have prevented the horrors of civil war.
Her Majesty resolved to visit Ireland, bearing the olive branch of
peace, and the same joy that attends Her steps in England fol-
lowed them there. Was it fitting that a visit of peace should be
marked by any thing ungracious f or that, finding Roman Catho-
lic bishops, the Queen should have passed them without notice ?
Such a course would have ill accorded with the graciousness of
Her Majesty's nature and designs. Besides, the Cardinal will tell
us that it is the custom of all civilized society to allow the cour-
teous titles of Roman Catholic Bishops, and if those titles had not
53
been given by the Queen and her Ministry, he would not have
been slow to draw the inference. But is there any connexion
between the grace of Her Majesty, and an invasion of her prero-
gative ? Ought the persons who feel the one to invade the other ?
Nay, the condescension of the Throne should place it higher in
our regard and veneration, and prevent the least encroachment on
the royal authority. Yet, the Romish priesthood remind us of
royal kindness to excuse their attack on the royal power ! What
is the just inference from this? Not, surely, that the agents
of Rome so long for power, that courtesy cannot be shown to
them with safety ! We shrink from the consequence, and should
be sorry if Nicholas forced it upon us.
The use of Roman Catholic titles has, however, been extended
beyond the visit of Her Majesty to Ireland. It has been matter of
almost daily occurrence, and some such titles have found their
way into legal instruments ! We put this point as strongly as
possible, to show that there is nothing to conceal. We wish to
gloss over nothing, but would rather have the whole stated fairly
and fully. " The hierarchy," says Dr. Wiseman, " has been
recognised in Ireland, and the Colonies." True, but what fol-
lows from this ? Are we to conclude that the policy extended to
Ireland and our foreign possessions must be acted upon in Eng-
land ? or that the course pursued in one place should be adopted
in all •? This is the Cardinal's argument, and it will be for the
government to consider its weight. There can be no doubt that
the true principles of government are the same at Tuam and in
Westminster. A priest, as such, can have no right in either
place to local titles, or to territorial jurisdiction. There may, in-
deed, be circumstances in Ireland that require a variation in our
policy, but in reason John of Tuam has no more right than
Nicholas of Westminster. If then there be two modes of action,
it is owing to some local difference. His Eminence thinks that
this variation is a fallacy, and that what is done in Ireland ought
to be done here. Does Nicholas forget that he uses a two-edged
sword ? It may be convenient for him to start from Dublin, but
others will proceed from St. James's; and, while he argues for the
same policy in England as in Ireland, they — persons who are im-
portant both for numbers and influence — will contend that what
is the rule in England should be the law in Ireland. It is not
54
for us to decide this : those who know the state of Irish society
can best judge what is applicable to their case.
But, having once made up our minds not to punish, in certain
cases, the assumption of territorial titles by Roman Catholic bi-
shops, it follows that we must use such titles in all our commu-
nications with them : there seems no midway between this and
insulting them at every interview. Those who have had any thing
to do with the present controversy have felt how difficult it is not
to call Dr. Wiseman " the Archbishop of Westminster," and if
this is felt about a contested title, how much more must it be expe-
rienced when we deal with an allowed title, especially where the
interests of the government and the people demand familiarity of
intercourse. The welfare of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects
requires that the Ministry should have some intercourse with
those who teach them ; but what communication could they have
if *' courteous titles " were denied ? or if one prelate were called
pseudo- Archbishop of Tuam, another the so-called Archbishop
of Sidney, or a third the would-be Roman Catholic Bishop of By-
town? We may conclude, therefore, that where Roman Catholics
exist, the government must consult for their welfare ; that in so
consulting, it is necessary to hold intercourse with bishops of the
Church of Rome ; and that the necessity of consultation as well
as the merest courtesy, requires that those gentlemen should be ad-
dressed by the titles they are allowed to bear. And if the com-
munication be by a legal instrument, it is manifest that such titles
will and must find a place there. This may, indeed, be a reason
against permitting territorial titles to be given, taken or used by
an independent authority ; but when such titles have long been
used with impunity, it can be no reproach to any one that they
find their way into legal documents, or that they become as« much
required by courtesy as the forms of daily life.
There is a third point in the liberality of governments ; namely,
grants of money to the Church of Rome, to which it is necessary
to direct a moment's attention. We are glad, however, to be re-
lieved, by the letter of Lord John Russell to the Bishop of Dur-
ham, from the necessity of arguing out the matter for ourselves,
and stating what, after all, could only be our own convictions.
" I thought it right," wrote his Lordship, '* and even desirable,
that the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholics should be
55
the means of giving instruction to the numerous Irish immigrants
in London and elsewhere, who without such help must have been
left in heathen ignorance." It is impossible to imagine an object
more worthy the attention of government than the one here men-
tioned. The poor are special objects of attention, as they have
little to cheer their passage through life, and in the hour of sick-
ness they have few things to afford them comfort. That Ministry
is most wisely and faithfully performing its trust, which, passing
through the various grades of society, fixes upon the lowest, and
singles out those as the objects of its care who are in danger of
being '* left in heathen ignorance." Indeed this is the truest way
to assist the progress of society. The rich have resources within
themselves, the middle classes are in a position to watch over
their own interests ; but the " immigrant," often houseless, home-
less, and friendless, asks our compassion by the very helplessness
of his state. Left without instruction, he becomes a torment to
himself, and too often a pest to others ; but, taught, he may prove
a blessing instead of a curse. It is evident that the instruction of
such persons is infinitely important to themselves and to others,
but how is it to be secured ?
The difficulty of answering this question can only be fully un-
derstood by those who have either gone to the abodes of poverty
themselves, or received a report from the visits of others. The
instructor has to cope with ignorance and prejudice in their worst
forms ; and, unless he take account of these, he had as well spare
his labour, for he can do no good. The difficulties that tend to
prevent the instruction of the poor sometimes present an almost
insuperable barrier, and render it impossible for any, except a
certain class of teachers, to do good. This is particularly the
case with the Roman Catholic poor. Taught to believe from
childhood that their Church is the only true one, that there is no
salvation out of its pale, and that the teaching of heretics is to be
avoided as a pestilence, they are proof against all our entreaty,
and reply " we will hear the priest." We regret this, but such is
the real state of things, and it has to be dealt with. If these peo-
ple are not taught by their own priests, they will remain in igno-
rance, and sink to the lowest scale in mind and morals. We
have, therefore, to make our choice between " heathen ignorance,"
with all its train of evils, and instruction through the ecclesiasti-
cal system of the Church of Rome. And can we long hesitate?
56
Even those who ar€ unwilling to employ the servants of the Pope,
will yet speak kindly, or at least not harshly, of a policy that
seeks to raise the poorest and perhaps the most ignorant of our
countrymen. How this act of humanity, extended to the Colo-
nies as well as London, can excuse, in any sense, the aggression
of the Church of Rome, we are at a loss to imagine. We are
surely not to be inhuman, as well as uncivil, in order to avoid
Papal encroachment. We cannot be the former, and we are pre-
pared to resist the latter, and to remind either priest or prelate
that there is no reason in thinking that we must allow the Papacy
because we love the ignorant and the poor.
Whether, therefore, we consider the forbearance exercised by go-
vernment, the recognition of Roman Catholic titles by successive
administrations, or the grant of public money for Roman Catholic
purposes, we see nothing to excuse the recent acts of the Pope.
They have been said to favour aggression, but this was not, and
could not be their intended influence. It is no doubt painful to
feel that kindness has been abused, and that what was done with
the best intention is adduced as an argument against us, but let
us not therefore regret the past. It shows us, which some had
doubted, that Rome is the same and unchangeable, — the same in her
idea of sole and supreme power, — the same in her wakeful crafti-
ness,— the same in her determination to bate no tittle of her pre-
tensions,— and the same in the determination of her servants to
promote tlie regalities of St. Peter by every means in their power.
VII. The " re-establishment of the hierarchy '* not al-
lowed by Her Majesty's exercise of the royal prerogative, or
by positive assurances of those in power.
We must now observe the difference between these acts of the
papacy and every exercise of the royal supremacy over Protes-
tants in foreign countries. The Cardinal invites us to this exami-
nation, and the subject is too full of interest to pass unnoticed.
His remarks are to this effect : " Considering the manner in which
acts of the royal supremacy had been exercised abroad, and ta-
king it for granted that it could not be greater when exercised in
foreign Catholic countries than the Pope's in our regard, we could
not suppose that his appointments of Catholic Bishops in ordi-
nary in England, would have been considered as more inconsis-
57
tent with the Queen's supremacy, than that exercise was consi-
dered inconsistent with the Pope's supremacy acknowledged in
those countries."* This reasoning proceeds on the supposition
that the exercise of the Queen's supremacy has been the same in
foreign countries as the recent exercise of the Pope's supremacy
in England, and without this supposition the whole argument is
inapplicable. But when or where did Her Majesty perform such
an act? His Eminence points us to Jerusalem, to Gibraltar, and
to Italy. We will follow him to each of these places. " In 1842,"
he writes,! " Her Majesty was advised to erect a Bishopric of
Jerusalem, assigning to it a diocese in which the three great Pa-
triarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria were mashed
into one see, having episcopal jurisdiction over Syria, Chaldea,
Egypt, and Abyssinia, subject to further limitations and alterations
at the royal will Mr. Bowyer," he adds, *' also shows
that Bishop Alexander was not sent merely to British subjects,
but to others owing no allegiance to the Crown of England."
With nothing but the Appeal before us, there is, we confess, an
apparent similarity between the exercise of the royal supremacy
and the exercise of the papal supremacy, — something like simi-
larity in the "mashing up" of the Patriarchates of Antioch,
Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and something like it in the jurisdic-
tion over Syria, Antioch, and Abyssinia, to be limited or altered
at the royal will. But this can only be the thought of a moment,
for every similarity vanishes the instant we consider what the
Queen has not done. Her Majesty has not put forth a claim to
the allegiance of the King of Abyssinia, or asserted a right to
change the entire worship of his Majesty's dominions, and to
proclaim herself supreme over him and over his subjects. This
is what the Pope has done, and the difference between the two acts
forbids a comparison.
On turning from the Appeal, however, to an " Annual letter,"
sent from the Bishop at Jerusalem, we find the case put in its
proper light. The Bishop does not arrogate to himself any
authority at variance with the rights of Abyssinia, Egypt, Chal-
dea, or Syria ; he does not suppose that the Emir Beshir, or the
Abyssinian King, is his subject, but simply styles himself " Sa-
muel, by Divine permission Bishop of the United Church of Eng-
land and Ireland at Jerusalem." We have no means at hand of
* Appeal, p. 25. f Ibid., p. 2Q.
58
ascertaining the exact tenor of the instruments by which the
bishopric at Jerusalem was created, but if the foregoing be the
title by which his Lordship is known, and there can be no reason
for supposing it is not, then we have a studied avoidance of terri-
torial jurisdiction, and the use of language that must have been
framed to avoid giving offence. We are happy to have our opi-.
nion so soon illustrated, that till the Government of a country
appoint a bishop, he should be the bishop in or at but not of
Jerusalem or England. "Under the same statute," adds his Emi-
nence, " a bishop of Gibraltar was named. His see was in a
British territory, but its jurisdiction extended over Malta — where
there was a Catholic Archbishop, formally recognised by our
Government as the bishop of Malta — and over Italy. Under this
commission. Dr. Tomlinson officiated in Rome, and, I understand,
had borne before him a cross, the emblem of archiepiscopal juris-
diction, as if to ignore, in his very diocese, the acknowledged
bishop of Rome." There can be less difficulty in dealing with
this exercise of authority than with the last, because the Cardinal
himself now supplies us with the data from which to reason. The
bishop's see, he says, " was in a British territory." His jurisdic-
tion did, indeed, extend over Malta, and if report be true, Dr.
Tomlinson officiated in Rome, and had a cross borne before him
there, but this cannot serve the purpose of the hierarchy. To
whom was the Doctor sent ? what was his mission ? and over
what did it extend ? These are important questions. We do not
commend an act that was supposed to ignore in his very diocese
the acknowledged bishop of Rome ; that was done on the Doc-
tor's sole responsibility. It might be an insult ! but as it does not
concern us, we return to the question, what mission did our Queen
give? The Appeal shall answer. *' They," the Bishops, "are
sent not only to British subjects, but to * such other Protestant
congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves under his
or their authority.'" We cannot fail to notice how careful the
Government have been to trench upon no one's rights. The fact
that his Holiness was in Rome could be no reason why our Pro-
testant countrymen, or any other Protestants, should be uncared
for and untaught. If the Church of England had been in com-
munion with the see of Rome, then it would have been enough to
have handed over the people to the Pope's care ; but as things
were, not to have appointed a bishop, would have left Protestants
59
of an Episcopal church without a pastor, and would have exposed
them to what we think most grievous error. Has the Pope been
as careful in the exercise of his authority as the Queen has in the
exercise of hers? Where are the limitations put to the rule of his
Eminence? He himself tells us that his rule is ^'•without per-
sonal limitations ; " and yet, because the Queen has exercised su-
premacy abroad, we are to allow the Pope to exercise his supre-
macy here. Let the Pope confine his pretensions to the submis-
sion of acknowledged Roman Catholics; let him limit the juris-
diction of his bishops as particularly as the Queen has done in the
creation of Protestant bishoprics ; and, further, let him henceforth
call his prelates Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church at or in
Beverley, rvithout territorial jurisdiction ; then the state will not
touch him. The controversy will be one of theology, to be dealt
with by divines, not by the law. At present, the Pope advances
a claim greater than Her Majesty ever exercises even over her
own subjects. So little does the action of the royal prerogative
assist his Eminence.
" But," remarks the Cardinal, there were also *' positive declara-
tions and public assurances" of those in power. " In 1841, or
1842, he writes,* " when, for the first time, the Holy See thought
of erecting a hierarchy in North America, I was commissioned to
sound the feelings of Government on the subject. I came up to
London for the purpose, and saw the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies, of which Lord Stanley was the Secretary On
the subject of my mission, the answer given was something to this
effect : * What does it matter to us what you call yourselves, whe-
ther Vicars- Apostolic, or Bishops, or Muftis, or Imaums, so that
you do not ask us to do any thing for you ? We have no right to
prevent you taking any title among yourselves." In examining
this statement, and any others of a similar nature, we are not to
inquire in what sense the applicant understood it or them, but to
ask what sense was intended to be conveyed ? The Under-
Secretary for the Colonies cannot be bound by what a Romanist
thought, but by the meaning he designed to convey. If this gave
a permission to take local titles involving territorial jurisdiction,
and to assume them in any part of the British Empire, then his
Eminence has found something to his purpose, but such is not the
case. First, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies spoke of some-'
* Appeal, p. 27.
60
thing entirely confined to Roman Catholics, — " we have no right
to prevent your taking any title among yourselves ;'^ and, se-
condly, he had reference to a pure question of title, apart from
" territorial jurisdiction, without personal limit." The mention
of Muftis or Imaums clearly implies this; for, whatever maybe
said about the meaning of Bishops or Vicars-Apostolic, it will not
be pretended that the titles of Muftis or Imaums imply the same
kind of authority that the hierarchy claim. The truth is, that
both Lord Stanley and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies
looked upon the question in its reference to Roman Catholics
alone, not as conferring jurisdiction over others, and they cared
not, in this respect, what titles the Bishops bore. Indeed, while
the Pope and his servants confine themselves within their own
limits, and remain among themselves, we have no right to prevent
their bearing even a " nickname," as Mr. Roebuck would call it,
or any title they please ; but if their titles be, either necessarily or
accidentally, connected with something more, and imply that a
foreign prince is in any sense supreme over the realm of England,
our independence as a nation requires us to interfere.
These remarks naturally conduct us to the speeches of Lord
John Russell, in 1845 and 1846. *' In the debate on the Catholic
Relief Bill, on July 9th, 1845, Lord John Russell," says his
Eminence, " spoke to the following eflfect : ' He, for one, was pre-
pared to go into Committee on those clauses of the act of 1829.'
' He believed that they might repeal those disallowing
clauses, which prevented a Roman Catholic Bishop assuming a
title held by a Bishop of the Established Church. He could not
conceive any good ground for the continuance of this restriction.'
What his Lordship had said in 1845," adds Nicholas, *'he deli-
berately, and even more strongly confirmed in the following year.
In the debate on the first reading of the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill, February 5th, 1846, he referred to his speech, just quoted,
of the preceding session, in the following terms. Allusion having
been made to him, (by Sir R. Inglis,) he wished to say a few
words as to his former declaration ' that he was not ready at once
to repeal those laws without consideration.' It appeared to
him that there was one part of the question that had not been
sufficiently attended to. The measure of Government, (the Re-
ligious Opinions Bill,) as far as it was stated last year, did not
effect that relief to the Roman Catholics from a law by which they
61
were punished, both for assuming Episcopal titles in Ireland, and
for belonging to certain religious orders. That part of the subject
required interference by the legislature. As to preventing persons
assuming particular titles, nothing could be more absurd and
puerile than to keep up such a distinction.' **
It is important for us to put these quotations together, not only
because they contain the same sentiments, but because one of them
serves to fix the signification of the other. This will be evident
to any one who pays a moment's attention to his Lordship's words.
The first quotation does nothing more than mention the repeal of
those disallowing clauses in the Act of 1829, &c. ; — but the second
goes on to tell us that the Premier spoke of " relief to the Roman
Catholics,"' of the internal action of the Church of Rome, as in
the working of religious orders, and of something having refer-
ence to title, and not to territory. All this is very important, for
Lord John Russell's words are cited as an excuse for something
more than a name, and as a plea, not for purely Catholic arrange-
ment, but for Romish aggression. Such an application was foreign
to his Lordship's thoughts. Whatever Lord John Russell meant
by the distinction between Protestant and Roman Catholic bishops,
he calls the distinction absurd and puerile, remarking that nothing
could he more so. Now what would he so designate ? It could
not be thought by him, to be " absurd and puerile " to prevent
Roman Catholic bishops from assuming territorial jurisdiction and
claiming a right to divide the country into parishes, much less
that nothing could be more so. This could never be intended,
whatever was. We submit that his Lordship and the Under-
Secretary for the Colonies uttered the same sentiments. There
had, for some years, been a general impression that the Church of
Rome was changed, that her priesthood could receive favours
without encroachment, and that her bishops would bear titles
without advancing *' a claim to sole and undivided sway : " hence
the language of the Premier, and the words of the Under-Secre-
tary for the Colonies. But Rome has herself dissipated the illu-
sion, and taught us the truth. Both liberal and conservative have
said, either in effect or in words, " What does it matter to us what
you call yourselves, whether Vicars-Apostolic, or Bishops, or
Muftis, or Imaums ; " but the times are changed ! It seems as if
the Cardinal were trying to teach us that, to be safe, we must 'keep
up distinctions, and suspect, but never trust the servants of
62
Rome. We are told that a copy of the brief which has '* re-esta-
blished the hierarchy" was shown to Lord Minto two years since,
and that he returned no answer. Why was not this silence inter-
preted ? It could be nothing less than a respectful intimation,
that what the Premier condemns in 1850, was offensive in 1848.
VIII. The "re-establishment of the hierarchy " not assist-
ed by a mention of the supposed or real failings of others.
The Manifesto of Dr. Wiseman now passes beyond the field of
argument, and conducts us within the range of sarcasm and re-
proach. We are ready to follow his Eminence, not through a
love of such things, but from a conviction that none of the par-
ties he assails can suffer in a comparison with the Church of
Rome. In referring to either sarcasm or reproach, it is difficult
to confine ourselves to that part of the Appeal at which we have
arrived, for both run more or less through the entire document.
They are as a web binding the whole together, and they supply us
with the most caustic, though not the most truthful parts of the
production.
The Press is naturally the first object of the Cardinal's attack.
We cannot say that his Eminence remembered the injury the Press
had done to the interest and hopes of the Church of Rome ; but
if he did, it was only to be expected that he should charge it with
** raising his death- whoop," and " with refusing nothing, however
unfounded, however personal." In a controversy such as Rome
has provoked, it would be strange if no mistakes had been com-
mitted ; but concerning an overwhelming majority of publications
that have appeared, we can say that they have been truthful to the
letter, and intended to crush the hierarchy only because it is be-
lieved to be hostile to liberty and the spread of truth. The Press
is the natural and sworn enemy of darkness. Her office is to dis-
seminate the truth, and she will perform her work wherever error
rests. She did this at the Reformation by the printing of Bibles,
she is doing it now by the very course that Dr. Wiseman con-
demns; and, despite all opposition, she will still promote the
cause of humanity, carry light to every home of wretchedness, and
expose whatever, either in teaching or policy, would cloud the in-
tellect and enslave mankind.
The Church of England is the next that engages the Cardinal's
attention. It was not to be expected that in a matter affecting
63
the dignity of Rome, the Church of England should pass uncen-
sured. She is as one interested, says his Eminence, and against
her he directs his severest charge. He assails her by bitter sar-
casm, by a mention of her faults, and by a covert denial of her
mission. He attacks her clergy, her institutions, and her influ-
ence, and seems to rejoice in the hope that their efforts for good
may not succeed. As to the clergy, Dr. Wiseman tells us they
have practised a cheat, which time will unmask. *' It appears to be
a wish," he remarks, " on the part of the clerical agitators, to make
people believe that some tangible possession of something solid in
their respective sees has been bestowed upon the new bishops, —
something territorial as it has been called. Time will unmask the
deceit, and show that not an inch of land, or a shilling of money,
has been taken from Protestants and given to Catholics." Where
was the sincerity of the writer when he penned such language ?
Did he really hope to persuade us that the clergy have done this ?
that they have tried to convince the people that parts of the sees
they once held they do not now hold ? and that part of the money
till this time received by the Archbishop of Canterbury is now
paid to an Archbishop of Westminster ? His language goes to
this extent, and yet nothing can be more absurd. No one can
imagine, much less say, that a shilling has passed from Lambeth to
Golden-square : time need not unmask the deceit, for there is
none. What is meant is this : that the territory assigned by the
Crown has been re-assigned by an assumed authority, and be-
stowed for all such purposes of spiritual government as can possi-
bly be exercised, with power to obtain all and every such eccle-
siastical dues and other moneys as can he collected. The case
seems precisely of this nature. The land is given, not to be
seized at once, for there are other holders, but to be taken posses-
sion of when the present occupiers are removed ; and the privi-
leges of such possession are to be enjoyed as soon as Church fees
can be diverted into the pockets of Romish priests.
All that the Cardinal says about the Church of England is like
adding mockery to insult. We would willingly avoid a reference
to any faults or corruptions in the Church of Rome, but necessity
compels us to speak. His Eminence refers to clear, definite, and
accordant teaching ; to familiarity of intercourse and facility of
access ; to close, and personal and mutual acquaintance ; to face-
to-face knowledge of each other ; to affectionate confidence and
64
warm sympathy, which form the truest, and strongest, and most
natural bond between a pastor and his flock ; and adds, that these
will be enjoyed in the Church of England as heretofore. We un-
derstand his meaning ; but does he imagine that the country will
forget the past, and at once believe that charity is only to be found
in the Roman Church? that her priests alone are ready to visit
" concealed labyrinths of lanes and courts, and alleys and slums?"
that they only realize the true idea of Christian pastors, and se-
cure that aifectionate confidence which forms the natural bond
between a pastor and his flock ? Nay, the traffic in spiritual
things that gave birth to the Reformation in Germany, the igno-
rance, infidelity, and wretchedness of most Roman Catholic coun-
tries, together with the history of monasteries and the impiety of
Rome, which led Luther to call it "the abode of every unclean
spirit," prevent such a thought. Besides, the recent sight of racks,
thumbscrews, with other instruments of torture, and human bones
that were found in the cells of the Inquisition, speak little of
Christian method of conversion, or of " affectionate confidence
and warm sympathy. '' Shall popery, semper idem, be cruel in
Italy, and yet gentle as a lamb on these shores ? Nay ; we sus-
pect her gentleness, and leave its tenderness for others.
But the Dean and Chapter of Westminster must have their
share of censure. His Eminence reminds them of their rich en-
dowments, and of the little paradise which such resources would
have formed around the abbey in Roman Catholic times. We are
reminded of what we have read somewhere, that without the Pope,
history would be a blank. It is evident that " the Appealer "
treats it as such, or he could not ignore so entirely our records of
the past. What says Burnet about the little paradises formed by
the Church of Rome? " The Abbeys," he writes, " being exempt-
ed from all jurisdiction, both civil and spiritual, and from all im-
positions, and having generally the privilege of sanctuary for all
that fled to them, were at ease, and accountable to none; so they
might do what they pleased. They found, also, means to enrich
themselves ; first, by the belief of purgatory ; for they persuaded
all people that the souls departed went generally thither
Then people were made to believe, that the saying of Masses for
their souls gave them great relief in torments, and did at length
deliver them out of them. This being generally received, it was
thought by all a piece of piety to their parents, and of necessary
C5
care for themselves and their families, to give some part of their
estate towards the enriching of these houses And this
did so spread, that if some laws had not restrained their profuse-
ness, the greater part of all the estates in England had been given
to these houses Yet this did not satisfy the monks, but
they fell upon other contrivances to get the best of all men's
jewel, plate, and furniture. For they persuaded them that the
protection and intercession of saints were of mighty use to them ;
so that whatsoever respect they put on the shrines and images,
but chiefly on the relics of saints, they would find their account in
it, and the saints would take it kindly at their hands, and inter-
cede the more earnestly for them This being infused
into the credulous multitude, they brought the richest things they
had to the places where the bodies or relics of these saints were
laid The monks, especially of Glastonbury, St, Alban's,
and St. Edmondsbury, vied one with another who could tell the
most extravagant stories for the honour of their house, and of the
relics in it. The monks in these houses, abounding in wealth,
and living at ease and in idleness, did so degenerate, that from the
twelfth century downward, their reputation abated much
They became lewd and dissolute, and so impudent in it, that some
of their farms were let for bringing in a yearly tribute to their
lusts. Nor did they keep hospitality and relieve the poor ; but
rather encouraged vagabonds and beggars, against whom laws
were passed in Edward III., King Henry VII., and this king's
reign."*
So much for the influence of Roman Catholic abbeys. Where are
the little paradises ? and where is the diffusiveness of papal wealth?
His Eminence suggests, by his taunts at the Dean and Chapter of
Westminster, and by a reference to his mission to the abject poor
who are near the abbey walls, a comparison between Protestantism
and Popery. Let it be made as fully as possible : England need
not blush, and the Church of England need not be ashamed.
" From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Em-
pire," writes Mr. Macaulay, " to the time of the revival of letters,
the influence of the Church of Rome had been generally favour-
able to science, civilization, and to good government ; but during
the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind
has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever
* Burnet's Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 245, 12mo., Loudon, 1825.
E
66
advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and
in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has every-
where been in inverse proportion to her power. ■* The loveliest and
most fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk
in poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor; while
Protestant countries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism,
have been turned by skill and industry into gardens, and can boast
of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets.
Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what,
four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall now compare the
country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be
able to form some judgment as to the tendency of papal domina-
tion. The descent of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to
the lowest depths of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in
spite of many natural disadvantages, to a position such as no
commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson.
Whoever passes in Germany from a Roman Catholic to a Pro-
testant principality, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a
Protestant canton, in Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Pro-
tant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to a higher
grade of civilization. The Protestants of the United States have
left far behind them the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and
Brazil ; the Roman Catholics of I-.ower Canada remain inert,
while the whole continent around them is in a ferment with Pro-
testant activity and enterprise."* The Cardinal must forgive this
quotation, for it is more than deserved ; and the merest justice to
those whom he has insulted requires that it should be penned.
We could easily apply the historian's words to *' concealed laby-
rinths of lanes and courts, and alleys and slums, nests of ignorance,
vice, depravity, and crime, as well as of squalor, wretchedness,
and disease; .... in which swarms a huge and almost countless
population." They are "iw great measure Catholics;''^ but we
forbear. We will only say that Rome has not raised them, en-
lightened and made them happy; and if she fail to bless her
children, let her not taunt those whom she forhids to approach,
and whose Protestant charity she would for ever chill.
"But the Premier, as well as the Church of England is at fault.
*' He has astonished all Europe," says the Cardinal, " by a letter,
that leaves no hope of favour with him. He has departed from
* Macaulay's Hist, of England, vol. i. pp. 47, 48.
67
the example of Sir Robert Peel, his honoured predecessor, and he
has pronounced a charge as awfully unjust as it is uncalled for on
the religion of many millions of her Majesty's subjects." The
object of this attack requires no defence from our hands. He has
done only what his station required from him, and his act in this
respect will rank with the most approved actions of his life. Was
her Majesty's minister to stand by in silence while the prerogative
of his royal mistress was invaded ? Was " the authority which
rules over the empire to be inactive" till the constitution should
become deranged ? There can be but one answer. The course of
duty was apparent, and his Lordship has taken it. In examining
the Premier's letter, there are three things that perhaps a Romanist
would particularly notice; namely, the name his Lordship applies
to Roman Catholic priests, his opinion respecting the Church of
Rome, and his high estimate of Protestantism. Now to which of
these can his Eminence object ? The first only tells us what her
Majesty's minister thinks, — that Popish Priests are the servants of
■Rome ; the second acquaints us with what he believes, — that
Popery is superstitious and enslaving ; while the third discloses
what he feels, — that Protestantism is liberty herself.
There is something most strikingly happy in the term ' ser-
vants,' as applied to the priests of the Church of Rome. We do
not mean it in any offensive sense, but they are bound to his Ho-
liness by a sacred bond. The bishops are especially so, for they
take an oath of allegiance, and swear not only to conceal what
the Pope tells them when his interests require it, but also to jpre-
serve, defend^ increase^ and advance the rights, honours, privi-
leges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, their lord the
Pope, and his lawful successors. The regalities of St. Peter are
naturally the first in importance with such persons. No minor
considerations, and no inferior claims, can be sufiered to interfere
with these. Italy and its Bishop ! here is the rallying point ; here
is the power before which every colour must fall, every spear be
grounded, and every knee bow. English loyalty enthrones the
Quee7i, and not another in the people's heart.
With reference to the character and influence of the Church of
Rome, it would be easy to prove to our minds that its teaching is
full of superstition, and that its tendency is to enslave. The Car-
dinal and others feel a deathly sickness at the charge ; but why
should they? If Rome be not superstitious, our thoughts will
68
not make her so ; and if there be nothing in her to enslave, hei'
children will and must he free. To us, however, there is some-
thing like superstition in the idea that every particle of a conse-
crated wafer, and every drop of some consecrated wine, is truly
the body and blood, soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ,
thereby making, as we think, as many gods as there are particles
of bread, or drops of wine. To us there is something like super-
stition in seeking the intercession of the dead, of whose piety we
are not certain, and who, supposing them in heaven, cannot, un-
less they are omnipresent, hear the prayers of those who address
them; and to us, it is superstition to hold that the worship as
well of images as of relics is both lawful and a handmaid to
piety. But his Eminence must forgive our thoughts. Nor is the
idea that Popery enslaves altogether without reason. She may
do so by the power supposed to reside in her priesthood ; by the
control that they are said to have over the unseen world ; by their
authority to bind and loose ; and by the expressed wish that all
knowledge should be moulded by them, or at least be under their
correction. But whether we are right or wrong cannot advance
the objects of the Appeal. The hierarchy must be maintained on
its own ground, and must stand or fall by its own merits.
But the Premier tells us of liberty. " The liberty of Protestant-
ism," he says, *' has been too long enjoyed to allow of any suc-
cessful attempt to impose a foreign yoke upon our minds and con-
sciences." Rightly does his Lordship remind us of the liberty of
Protestantism, for liberty is its essence and its life. It is liberty
from unreasoning submission, and from that bondage of mind and
conscience which such submission involves ; it is liberty to read
our Bibles, to learn its teaching without let or hindrance, and to
take the comfort of its sacred truths. It is liberty to draw nigh to
God directly through Jesus Christ, and not through either a fel-
low-mortal on earth, or a beatified saint in heaven ; a liberty not
to stand in the outer court of penance, weeping and lacerating
ourselves till the priest absolve us, but to draw nigh into the
" holiest by the blood of Jesus." This liberty is Protestant, for
it was obtained by protestation and secured by blood ; and the
idea that Italy would take it from us, if she could, nerves our arm
to the contest.
" There is," however, " another and still graver power," says
Nicholas, " that has allowed itself to be swayed from the upright
69
and inflexible position which England has ever considered natu-
ral to it We have been accustomed to feel sure," he
adds, " that whatever the agitation and storm that raged around,
the fountains of justice would retain their surface calm and un-
ruffled, and their waters cool and pure ; . . . but on the present
occasion the storm has been strong enough to disturb the very
spring of equity The avenues of public justice seem closed
against us." It is scarcely possible for a more serious or a more
awful sentence to be pronounced than this. If it be truth, the
arrival of Nicholas has been a fearful calamity, one not of tem-
porary, but of permanent evil. What can we hope for if justice
have fled ? if the spring of equity be disturbed, and if the highest
judicial functionary in the land have swerved from his upright-
ness ? Who are the men that have moved the one and disturbed
the other ? We are thankful to know the meaning of Dr. Wise-
man's words, or we should expect nothing but a dark night of con-
fusion, originating in priestcraft and marked by death. But
enough of this. We are not prepared to think that justice has
forsaken us, because the Lord High Chancellor stood in a ban-
quet-room, and spoke from behind its tables. His words were
truthful, and justice yet sits upon the woolsack : the springs of
equity are now sending forth their streams calm, cool, and pure
as ever, so that Italy as well as England and the world may
drink.
But the Prelate's words are quite accordant with what Rome
once taught, that " Prince's laws, if they be against the Canons
and decrees of the Bishop of Rome, be of no force nor strength."
If this be true of " Prince's laws," then a fortiori, it is true of
the Lord High Chancellor's awards, of Lord Campbell's decisions,
of the Premier's letter, or of any thing and every thing that may
be against the Pastoral of Pius IX. Nothing said against it can
be truth, no denunciation of it can be charity, and nothing done
against it can be justice. The public, therefore, must not allow
themselves to be misled by the cry of injustice: it may only mean,
you are opposing us. The Cardinal, having no confidence in the
English press, no hope in the Church of England, no Romanizer
in the First Lord of the Treasury, and no sympathy in the Judi-
cial Bench, turns, as a last resort, to *' open-fronted and warm-
hearted Englishmen." Yes, they are warm-hearted ; but, at the
same time, they are too shrewd to harbour unwittingly the loyalty
E 2 .
70
of Ignatius, too fond of liberty to forge fetters for the Holy Office
of the Inquisition; and too much attached to their Bibles to wel-
come a Church whose Head denounced the circulation of the
scriptures in the vulgar tongue as " a defilement of the faith emi-
nently dangerous to souk."* In saying that Englishmen will not
receive such a system, we are not too confident, for his Eminence
has appealed to the people, and they have answered him, — an-
swered him by resolutions, by protests, and by meetings unusual
for their numbers, enthusiasm, intelligence, and decision, — all
concurring to invest the following sentence taken from the Times
of 7th February, 1829, with all but prophetic truthfulness. "Let
even the most anxious Orange alarmists console themselves with a
fixed and immoveable confidence, that against diny further claims
of the Catholic body, — that is to say, against any efforts to ad-
vance their Church and to aggrandize their priesthood at the ex-
pense or to the danger of the religious establishments of the realm,
there can exist no materials of division among Protestants ; but,
on the contrary, that against any such Popish enterprises, the
Protestants of England, Scotland, and Ireland, will rise like one
man to crush them."
CONCLUSION.
But, it will be asked, what remedy can be proposed ? How
shall the case be met ? It will be impossible, in the brief conclu-
sion to which we must confine ourselves, to do more than indicate
the course that may, and as we think, ought to be pursued. It
will appear, by this time, that the aggression we have been dis-
cussing is one of a purely priestly character ; that it is a question
of rule, not one affecting the teaching of the Church of Rome or
the comfort of her members ; and that it seeks to secure the ho-
mage of the government and the submission of the people. These
thoughts greatly assist in pointing out the wisest policy. For
example : —
As the " re-establishment of the hierarchy " does not affect the
laity of the Roman Catholic Church, and as it neither originates
with them nor confers upon them any additional privilege, it
would be manifestly unjust, as it would be impolitic, to commence
a course of persecution against them. Nothing could be gained
* Bull of Pius YII. against Bible Societies, June 29, 1816.
71
by such a proceeding except heart-burnings and strife, for truth
cannot be infused by blows, nor can love be inflamed by the
faggot or the torch. Again : as the question is one of authority,
we may properly consider whether it does not involve principles
that are applicable to the Protestant as well as to the Roman Ca-
tholic. Now we equally deny the right to assume independent
" territorial jurisdiction without personal limit" to the ministers of
the Church of England and to those of the Church of Rome, to
a convocation and to a synod, to a conference, to a kirk, and to a
congregation. None of these, indeed no priests any more than
the lay people, have a right to jurisdiction over one foot of land,
except where the law approves of it. This will render it unne-
cessary that we should pass a measure exclusively against the
Roman Catholic Church : it may embrace persons of all creeds.
But further : as the recent measure seeks to confer territorial juris-
diction over all England upon Romish priests, may it not be met
by asserting and defending the supremacy of the Queen and the
law ? Let it be decreed that any person or number of persons,
whether natives of this country, natiu-alized persons, or foreigners,
claiming the right to govern England, or any part of it, either in
spiritual or secular matters, independently and without the sanc-
tion of the Crown and government, and performing any act or
acts arising out of such claim, shall be held guilty of a high crime
and misdemeanour, and be liable to such penalties as the Parlia^
ment shall decide.
To assist in determining when a claim to the government of
England is put forth, it might be declared that the government of
religious societies as such, and so far as that government is con-
fined to the members of such societies, or any persons who may
voluntarily join them, shall not be taken to involve the crime
before mentioned ; but that a claim of jurisdiction beyond this,
manifested either by publications asserting the same, or by terri-
torial divisions of the country for the bestowment of jurisdiction
over it, or by the creation of local titles, or by the assignment of
territorial jurisdiction to persons holding the titles to which the
assigned territory belongs, shall be held guilty and be treated
accordingly. It would be easy to mention other things that
would, according to the fairest interpretation, be an assertion of
supremacy over the realm of England ; but we are warned to for-
bear by the extent to which we have already gone. We must,
72
however, be allowed to add a word to our Protestant fellow-
countrymen. The government may do much in the present most
painful crisis. On them rests a great weight of responsibility, and
that responsibility we are assured they will discharge ; but there
is also something for us to do. There is an intimate and indeed
an inseparable connexion between the Ministry and the people.
One cannot act, so that the best intentions are often rendered
powerless, without the other. It is obviously, therefore, our first
duty to support the government. -The Prime-minister relies with
confidence on the people of England, and assures us that he will
not *' bate a jot of heart or hope, so long as the glorious princi-
ples and the immortal martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in
reverence by the mass of the nation." Shall he be disappointed
in this hope ? and shall our political differences mar our success ?
We trust they will not ; for we should all feel that political or
other differences are as nothing compared with our liberty and
the truth.
But, while united ourselves, let us not forget what is due to our
Roman Catholic fellow countrymen. They are not necessarily
involved in this controversy, and we owe them the sympathy of our
common brotherhood. We do not say that we should at any time be
so credulous as to believe whatever istold us, particularly as there
are unknown agents secretly infusing Romish leaven, but let us
show by forbearance, by gentleness, and by trustful bearing, that
our hearts are still warm towards our Roman Catholic brethren.
Let us prove to them that we would advance rather than diminish
their just rights, and that the very feeling which protects ourselves
will move us to help them. Again : if we owe something to Ro-
man Catholics, we owe still more to our own people, whom the
servants of the Pope are endeavouring to lead astray. The means
they employ adapt themselves to any and every circumstance in
which persons are placed, and the secession of one and another to
the Church of Rome speaks to us of some active and hidden in-
fluence. One moment we see it, the next it has vanished, — not,
however, without leaving some sad proof of its presence in the fall
of those we had admired, trusted, and loved. This calls upon the
people for immediate action. There is much that may be done by in-
dividual exertion in our several parishes, — not at public meetings,
for they are often tumultuous, but by private influence and by the
diffusion of knowledge. Every member of our congregations
73
should be informed on the errors of the Church of Rome, and thus
armed against attack. We should make ourselves acquainted
with ahy agency that may be at work in our immediate neighbour-
hoods, carefully mark its proceedings, and take such steps as are
likely to defeat its designs. Let no one think of leaving the mat-
ter to others, or of doing nothing because his minister is active.
All are concerned, and the press supplies us with information
that is ready to our hands.
But, lastly, while we are engaged in controversy, let us not
forget " the purlieus of Westminster, — its concealed labyrinths of
lanes, and courts, and alleys, and slums, nests of ignorance, vice,
depravity, and crime, as well as of squalor, wretchedness, and
disease; whose atmosphere is typhus, and whose ventilation is
cholera, in which swarms a huge and almost countless popula
tion." Here are objects that demand the sympathy of every
Christian, and they will have it. We are jealous of no one, we
quarrel with no one, because he makes these his care, or because
he is glad to visit such abodes of wretchedness. We would share
his toil, and go ourselves to those haunts of filth, to bear light to
the dark corners which no lighting-board can brighten. Nor are
we alone in this. There are tens of thousands whose hearts warm
as they think of the poor. They sigh to relieve them, and are daily
found planning some act of mercy. We should love to write of
these, and tell of known visits to the homes of wretchedness, of
hours spent by the bedside of sickness, — of the young instructed,
of the aged comforted, and of peace imparted to the dying through
the prayer of piety and the word of life. But we refrain ; — our
object is only to excite to greater earnestness in this holy work.
The poor are unguarded, and easily assailed ; let us visit them, —
not, indeed, to teach them controversy, but to lead them to love
that Holy Bible, whose truths are our truest safeguard against the
Church of Rome.
74
Since the preceding pages were written, the question of papal
aggression has been brought under the notice of Parliament ; and
besides exciting the people, it has produced results there, that the
most sagacious had not anticipated. All Europe has been asto-
nished to see England without a ministry, and unable for a time
to form one ; and future historians will ask wherefore did the
Premier resign ? and what could produce the perplexity that
immediately followed ? Different answers will be returned to
these questions, according as persons look at the matter from this
or that point of view, — yet to us the whole may be traced to papal
influence. But for this, financial difficulties could not have pro-
duced the crisis we have just witnessed. They would no doubt
have had their influence, but questions of finance would soon
have been adjusted, or a party would have been formed with
sufficient strength to guide the country. But Rome interposed :
she had skilfully coiled her net, and it was for some time doubtful
what would be done, or in whose hands the affairs of the country
would be placed. This is Italian influence at the outset, as if to
warn us against a power that will seek to control the legislature
whenever papal claims are disputed or opposed. It becomes us,
therefore, both to think and to act.
In ** the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," lately submitted to Parlia-
ment, the distinction we have suggested between the laity and the
clergy has been recognised and acted upon. The Bill is one, as
we hoped it would be, directed against no interest of the people,
but solely against the encroachment of Eomish bishops. In this
measure there is not the remotest intention to interfere with the
religious privileges of the people, or with any rights of the poor.
It may be convenient for the prelates of the Italian Church to try
to make it appear that the poor are to be outraged by the measure;
but nothing could be further from the wish of those in power. If
the Bill had said there shall be no charitable trnsts among Roman
Catholics, it would have injured the poor; but it only declares
that such and such persons shall be ineligible for the manage-
ment of trust property. And what hardship will this be to the
75
poor ? There are priests and laymen who are as competent to fill
the office of trustee as any Bishop, and they have complained that
the management of property has been, or is being entirely en-
grossed by the Bishops. Why has this been done? Was trust
property so badly managed that the priests and the laity are no
longer to be trusted ? We cannot doubt that, if Roman Catholic
Prelates are resolved to break whatever law may be passed, the
charitable can find trustees for their bequests. The poor will
not suffer.
In dealing with Romish Bishops the Bill touches upon no right
that properly belongs to them. This will, we hope, be readily
admitted after the arguments we have advanced : for if Bishops
have no right to the government of England in spirituals, if they
have no right to territorial jurisdiction, and no right to form
parishes and to apply canon law or the decrees of synods without
the sanction of the Crown, then they have no claim to local eccle-
siastical titles which indicate all these. The measure of govern-
ment touches the last of these. It interferes with no religious
teaching of the Church of Rome, except with that of the universal
sovereignty of the Pope, it leaves the people to worship God as
they please, and it allows the " doctrines and discipline" of the
papacy to be carried on properly within its own limits ; but it
checks encroachment and forbids aggression.
Once more, the Bill imposes the least possible restriction that is
likely to secure the desired object. Indeed this has been made
an objection against it; but, if the measure answer the desired
end, its liberality is and must be a recommendation. True liberty
consists, not in " every man doing that which is right in his own
eyes," but in individual freedom being subject to no unnecessary
restraint. This principle seems to have guided the formation of
Lord John Russell's Bill, throughout which we trace a desire to
legislate only so far as may be necessary, accompanied, however,
by the assurance that whatever is requisite will be done. How far
local titles are inseparable from territorial jurisdiction, and the
spiritual government of all England, remains to be seen. If the
one cannot be exercised without the other, then the measure sub-
mitted to Parliament will secure the most important results
without trenching upon any principle of civil or religious liberty :
but if sophistry evade the force of its provisions, it may then be
necessary to go beyond the title, and to decree that no government
76
of England independently of the Crown be allowed under any
name whatever.
The contest between the Government of these realms and
the ecclesiastical power of Rome has, we fear, but just com-
menced, for there is every indication of a severe, and, perhaps,
a protracted struggle. We cannot tell when it will end, or whi-
ther it will lead us — the result is in God's hands — but, unless
we are* content to bow to the dictum of an Italian conclave,
unless we are willing to have our national councils always con-
trolled by Romish priests, and, further, unless we are prepared to
surrender the glorious principles of the Reformation that were
secured to us by the blood of our immortal martyrs, we must pre-
pare for the strife, and meet it with the firmness of men. We are
not seeking to deprive any one of his just rights, but only to pre-
serve our own ; and we enter into the struggle, nerved by a sense
of duty to God, to our country, and to ourselves, and will try
to snap every chain that fetters the mind, or enslaves the con-
science of our fellow-countrymen.
THE END.
Printed by Maurice & Co., Fenchurch-street.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11