Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

declared by those, to whom it is principally addressed, namely the Irish Prelates, in the most solemn manner (in national synod), that it is not mandatory. Having before spoken of certain weapons and tactics anciently employed by the enemies of Christian truth, I cannot wean my thoughts from the contemplation of some other of their manoeuvres in their first campaign. << *And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of << his words, that so they might deliver him into the power and authority of the Governor. >>

[ocr errors]

«

I deem it necessary to premise the reflections I am about to offer, with an explicit declaration, that every orthodox Catholic believes, that the primacy of St. Peter and his successors the Bishops of Rome was instituted by Christ, and that obedience is due to them from all Christians, and that the majesty of the Apostolic, See is to be revered by all nations, in which the faith is preached, and the unity of the church is preserved: that the plenary power over spiritual things is vested in the Apostolic See, and the successors of Peter the Vicars of Christ: and that in matters of spiritual discipline and church government, as also in questions of faith, it belongs peculiarly to the chief Pontiff to decide, and his decrees are obligatory upon all the dispersed churches. But, that no power was given by God to blessed Peter and his successors over civil or temporal things, every Catholic believes, and most of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects have sanctioned their belief by their express oath. Hence upon the regular and solemn issuing of any decree by the Sovereign Pontiff on matters within the competency of his power and range of his pastoral duty,

*Luke xx. 20.

the corresponding duty of the flocks, collectively and individually, is simply submission. Every such decree is in its nature mandatory, and therefore obligatory. Whence the canonical adage-Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Now what is the plain case of the rescript? We are to judge of it from the context, as it lies before us. Nescit vox missa reverti. We may not construe this instrument secundum intentionem imponentis. It would be nugatory here to ask-Quis imposuit? Et quo Animo? That is, lamentably, too clear. The first part of the interrogatory is however obviously answered by a negative. Not his Holiness. The latter part will receive an unequivocal answer in the unsophisticated exposition of the text. We shall simplify and curtail labour, Sir John, by following our technical rules for construing deeds. First, no parol evidence can be set up against a written deed. This puts hors de combat a vast mass of explanation, which is usually given by the defenders of the rescript, upon the sincerity of the British Government in their professions in favor of the Roman Catholics; the disinterested zeal of the Vice Prefect of the Propaganda, and his most learned prelates and divines for the purity of Catholic faith and the perfection of church government; the accommodating quiescence of the solicitors for Veto in the mandates of Rome and the expectancies of St. James'; the unsoliciting generality of the instructions given to the English Agent at Rome; his delicate forbearance to make known the wishes of his principals; the nicely calculated prevention of his Holiness' return to Rome; and the happy concentration of all the jarring principles and feelings in this new ark of the covenant between Rome and the sworn enemies of her prerogatives. We

are naturally then brought to consider the instrument, as it exhibits itself to the reader.

The first object of enquiry, when reading a written deed, mandate, or decree is, whether it be clothed with those formalities, which certify its genuine authenticity; that is, whether it bear the signature, the fiat, the certificate, the seal, the delivery, or other mark of execution by the only person, who can give it efficiency. Here nothing of that is pretended. But it is contended, that Monsignor J. B. Quarantotti has, in the absence of the Sovereign Pontiff, executed a power or commission vested in him by his Holiness for the special purposes of the rescript. Here then are we driven to look into the execution of the power or commission attempted or intended to be executed: and the first object of investigation (which in most cases appears redundant), is the title to the power, in the person undertaking to delegate or depute it to another. Nemo dat, quod non habet, is a truth so transcendently conclusive, that if fairly taken and applied to the case in question, will supersede the necessity of urging a single argument against the efficiency or validity of the greater part of the rescript. Al that the rescript specifically purports to decree, and all that it generally refers to, as allowable by the indulgence of the Apostolic See, is emphatically civil in its nature and tendency; and I scruple not to assert, that to admit, that the papal powers extend to affect what is civil or temporal, is nothing short of substantial perjury in every one, who has upon oath renounced the temporal power of the Pope within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. By the true light, which lighteth every man, that cometh into the world, we all know, that to be grateful to a civil legislature, for passing a civil law, is a civil act: and I having sworn, that I do

[ocr errors]

not believe, that the Pope of Rome hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm, cannot consistently with such oath, admit, that I am controulable by his Holiness, or subject to any decree he can issue to direct, model, or force my civil conduct in such civil matter? What then is to be thought and said of these words, decretum est, ut Catholici legem, quæ superiore « anno rogata fuit, pro illorum emancipatione juxta formam, quæ ab Ample Tuá relata est, << æquo gratoque animo excipiant et amplec<«tantur?» « tantur ?» Not only is this a decree upon a subject not within the competency of the power, from which it is expressed to issue; but the authenticated translation of it is unfaithful. Under correction of Theologians, Canonists, and Grammarians, I maintain, that the Latin words, decretum est, ut Catholic legem, cequo gratoque animo excipiant et amplectantur, are imperative: and not optional, as the English words are, that the Catholics may with satisfaction and gratitude accept and embrace the bill. The term toleration essentially imports, that the power, which tolerates, imparts a boon, privilege, or indulgence of some sort to those, whom it tolerates; and by necessary implication assumes a controul, superiority, or command over the thing, which it tolerates in others. Can then the man, who has sworn, that he does not believe, that the Pope has or ought to have any direct or indirect temporal power within our realm, admit with a safe conscience, his Holiness' power of tolerating any thing, which is within the competency of civil authority? <«< Hæc omnia, cum id tantum

[ocr errors]

respiciant, quod civile est, omnem mæreri tolerantiam possunt.» Can the temporal power be supreme and independent, if it be to look up to the

spiritual for toleration? Toleration formally excludes supremacy and independence between the tolerator and tolerated.

Beyond his Holiness' incompetency to decree, enjoin, or order any thing in our united kingdom, that is of a civil or temporal nature, another preliminary and conclusive argument stares us in the face against the authority of the rescript. In admitting, and consequently submitting to the jurisdictional supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, I cannot figure to myself the investiture of that vicarial dignity, disannexed from certain duties imposed upon the vicar, by the divine founder of the church, whom he represents on earth. In these duties I found the rights and prerogatives* of the Holy See.

[ocr errors]

"

The

I once quoted to Columbanus (Reply 6,) what may not be improper to bring into your thoughts, especially since you have become one of us; it was written by Pope Nicholas I. in the 9th century, to the Greek Emperor Michael (Apud Natal. Alex. T. 4. p. 334). « The privileges of the Roman « Church were vested in St. Peter by Christ's word of mouth; « they are deposited in that very church, they have been ob<< served from all antiquity, they have been holden in venera«<tion by the holy universal synods, and they have been as « such received by the holy church. By no means can they be diminished, by no means changed: because the foundation, « which God has laid, no human effort can remove, << privileges I say of that See or Church are perpetual, they are << rooted and planted by divine power: they may be assailed, << transferred they cannot be: they may be plucked at, up« rooted they never can be.» These quotations are offered to you, Sir John, since you have been pleased to make yourself one of us. The purpose, for which I quote these words in a work, which I hope may come under the eyes of many Protestant readers, is, that they may see, that the venerable Catholic Bishops of Ireland, are only following up the uniform and invariable doctrine of the Church of Rome, in resisting the innovations of the present day, as Pope Nicholas I. did those of Photius, the schismatical patriarch of Constantinople, who held, that when the Emperors transferred the seat of Empire

« ÖncekiDevam »