source, as has hitherto been too often the case, of complaint, and dissension. Thus you will give her not only a fresh claim to the veneration of her adherents, but even a title to national gratitude; and thus, in fine, while her just pre-eminence is oppressive to none, her moderation will render her respectable in the eyes of all parties.

Having now secured the interests of the Establishment, and endeavoured to remove your Lordship's apprehensions on that head, give me leave to turn to other objects introduced into your Charge, without doubt, for very good and benevolent purposes; I mean the little hints and imputations thrown out against the Catholics, their conduct, and their tenets. And here I must pause one moment, to express the deep regret with which I see talents, influence, and authority, all employed to circulate the tales of malevolence and the misrepresentations of party; to revive sentiments of mistrust aud animosity, which the benevolence and good sense of the nation have nearly allayed; and to present the Catholic to his Protestant countrymen as a traitor and a rebel to the King and the Constitution. If such be the spirit of the Established Church, and such the mode of defence adopted by her first ministers, the candid observer will not be surprised at the increase of Dissenters, or at the supposed obstinacy of Catholics. And little surely will the numberless liberal and generous minds, whether among the clergy or laity, who profess her doctrines, think themselves obliged to any writer who shall recur to such arts for the support of her in

terests.

"Catholics," you say, "hold opinions incompatible with the safety of our constitution both in church and state." What these opinions are, you state elsewhere. "The King," you say, “is head of our Church, and the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction within these realms. On the contrary, Papists assert that the Pope is supreme head of the whole Christian Church, and that allegiance is due to him from every individual member in all spiritual matters." I am willing, my Lord, to give you full credit for the accuracy of your statements when the doctrines of your own Church are in question and I claim a reciprocal admission of my statements when Catholic tenets are to be explained. Your Lordship will, I apprehend, accept this condition with some reluctance, as our

adversaries in general define our articles for us, and contend that the articles thus imposed upon us, and not our own creeds or catechisms, contain our real doctrine; a process in controversy extremely convenient to one party, though not so equitable to the other. Your Lordship, not only in the charge now before me, but in some former works, has adopted this mode of attack, and exercised your polemic powers very ingeniously in the

ouaxía, or fighting with shadows. Give me leave to present you on this occasion with a more substantial object. The General Council of Florence defines as follows:

Ifem, definimus Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem et Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem teuere primatum, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum Successorem esse beati Petri, Principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiæ Caput, et omnium Christianorum Patrem et Doctorem existere ; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi, ac gubernandi universalem ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse, quemadmodum etiam in gestis Ecumenicorum conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur. Renovantes insuper ordinem traditum in canonibus cæterorum venerabilium Patriarcharum ; ut Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus secundus sit post sanctissimum Romanum Pontificum, tertius vero Alexandrinus, quartus autem Antiochenus, et quintus Hierosolymitanus; salvis videlicet privilegiis omnibus et juribus eorum."

Your Lordship will perceive, that the words supreme and allegiance do not occur in this decree. In truth, our Lord Jesus Christ is supreme head of the Catholic Church; the Pope we consider as his vicar or representative; as such we owe him obedience in spirituals, but not allegiance. The latter word slipped from your pen, inadvertently without doubt, and was not meant to convey an idea that we pay to the Pope that which we withhold from the King. We acknowledge, therefore, in the former an authority merely spiritual, such as Christ gave to his Apostles, for the preservation of unity and of co-operation in all parts of the Christian body. This doctrine you assert to be a sufficient ground of exclusion from all places of trust. Why so, my Lord? We acknowledge in the sovereign all the power over our persons, our properties, and all our temporal concerns, which

the laws of the land give him; we swear allegiance to him exclusively, and we are willing to defend his constitutional prerogative at the expense of our fortunes and our lives. We withhold from the king that only, which the Church of England has never ventured openly and boldly to entrust to him, spiritual authority. How this spiritual authority can possibly clash with temporal concerns or civil duties, I do not well comprehend. Casuistry, I believe, has been employed more frequently, and, I fear, with more success, to embroil than to separate our civil and religious interests; if they should come into contact, the rule of the Gospel is obvious, "Give unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's."

Your Lordship will moreover observe, that such collisions may take place in any country, where the legislature may make provisions incompatible with any Gospel ordinance. You will also bear in mind, that they originate not with the Pope, and may exist totally independent of his authority. In matrimonial contracts, fo instance, no power upon earth, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, can annul a marriage originally valid, or permit the parties to contract other engagements. When, in such cases, Catholics recur to the Roman See, it is in order to have the best and safest theological decision as to the validity of the first contract. Such cases, in the Greek church, are referred to the Patriarch, and might, if the present discipline of the church permitted it, be ́decided with equal propriety by the Archbishop or the Bishop of the Diocese. But howsoever, or by whomsoever, such cases are decided, the result is, that while the party or parties concerned are governed by their conscience in private, their property, names, and temporal interests are regulated by the law of the land. I must repeat, that the occurrence of such cases depends not upon the existence of the Papal power, and that the welfare of the state is very little concerned in the place or manner in which they are decided, whether abroad or at home, by the Pope, or by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Your Lordship blames the Irish Catholic Bishops with some asperity, for having rejected the proposed measure of allowing the King a negative on the appointment of Catholic Bishops in Ireland: but you assign as a reason that which, I believe, they did not give : viz. that "it was incompatible with the rights of their

terms.

Sovereign Pontiff." They never, I repeat it, gave this reason, and if they had given it, they would not have expressed it in these "Their Sovereign Pontiff," on this occasion, like the word allegiance elsewhere, escaped from your Lordship, undoubtedly without object or design, and is intended as a term synonymous with Pope, only a little more euphonic. The expression, Sovereign Pontiff," is an historical, not a theological, phrase. It implies, not that the Pope is the sovereign of bishops, but that he is a Sovereign and a Bishop. Now, my Lord, allow me to substitute the reason which the Irish Bishops really gave, in the place of that which you have been pleased to give for them.

Resolved, "That it is the decided opinion of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland here assembled, that it is inexpedient to introduce any alteration in the canonical mode hitherto observed in the nomination of Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, which mode, by long experience, has proved to be unexceptionable, wise, and salutary." That is to say, inexpedient in existing circumstances. Existing circumstances have been of great service to many illustrious statesmen, as your Lordship well knows, and may possibly be more than once adverted to in the approaching debate.* Allow these worthy prelates, for once, to profit of existing circumstances, and to turn to a momentary advantage the influence of these very powerful agents, so frequently employed against them. What the peculiar circumstances, alluded to, were, is immaterial; nor shall I hazard a conjecture, as I have no grounds to go on: though it may perhaps be surmised that the Catholic Bishops of Ireland might possibly be unwilling to trust their religious interests, or any influence in those interests, in the hands of an administration, which had been formed upon principles professedly hostile to their religion. If such were their feeling, it surely may claim indulgence, and can at least excite no surprise. If a spirit of conciliation should ever succeed to the animosity of the present period, (and for the honor, and

1 General meeting on the 14th of September, 1808.

* Since I wrote the sentence above, an extract of a letter from Dr. O'Reilly, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, has been communicated to me, where the danger apprehended from the Veto is represented as being of a temporary nature, resulting from existing circumstances.-See Historical Account of the Laws against the Roman Catholics of England, printed by Luke Hansard and Sons,

the interest of the country, I most devoutly wish that it ere long may,) you will probably find the Irish Prelates willing to make every concession which their duty will permit, and His Majesty's Ministers can require. The Catholics of Ireland, that is, the Irish nation, have been disappointed and insulted; we are not therefore to wonder, if they should betray some symptoms of ill-humor and irritation.

Though you acknowledge, that in your opinion, the "Veto would. not be an effectual preservative" from the dangers you apprehend from the concession of the Catholic claims, yet you enlarge with some acrimony on its refusal," Catholic Bishops," you say, "have "great influence over their clergy," and the clergy again over their congregations; is this an evil, my Lord? or is it an evil only in the case of Catholic Bishops? But " this influence," you assure your clergy, "must flow from a foreign source, through channels over which the civil and ecclesiastical Head of these kingdoms is to have no control," &c. "Can it be safe," you continue, "to place mien in authority under the King, who are thus attached to a foreign power, and that foreign power at this moment under absolute subjection to the most inveterate enemy of this country? It would be an instance of the grossest kind of that acknowledged absurdity, imperium in imperio. It would be to give the Pope a complete command over the minds and consciences of men, who would owe an unreserved and undivided allegiance to another master."

Truth, without doubt, is your Lordship's object, and charity and benevolence the predominant feelings of your heart; yet by some fatality or other, your representations of the doctrine and conduct of Catholics are always exaggerated, equivocal, and invidious. The influence which the Catholic Pastors have over their flock, is founded in the first place upon the Gospel, and on that grand commission, which Christ gave to his Apostles, "Go and teach all nations;" and in the second place, on the exemplary and disinterested discharge of the laborious duties of their station. "Their ordination," it is true, comes originally from Rome, the apostolic source whence all the western churches have derived their spiritual powers, and to which the Church of England, according to your assertion in another work,' is indebted for the same blessing.

1 Elements of Christian Theology, Part III. Art. xxIII.