PART II.

THIS SENSE MOST ABSOLUTELY FALSIFIED BY THE ACT 10 GEO. IV., cap. 7.

OUR oath of non-supremacy has not been falsified through supine indifference; nor by a mere "winking" at the exercise of the authority of the Pope within the realm. The case is intensely more impious; the nation lies under the presumptuous guilt of deliberate and confirmed legislative sanction.

Neither territorial title, indeed, nor corporate succession, nor Papal jus. are recognized by our common-law: nor is there any power in our law o constitution to enforce any rule or order of the Pope within the realm: nor has Antichrist qualified the high blasphemy of his pretensions, by conde scending to ask for jurisdiction from Parliament.

The common-law, as ever, is still theoretically antagonistic to the Vatican; and the two jurisdictions, as prior to 1533, are once more at feud on the minor question of limits. In the case of Boyle v. Wiseman, the former asserted its supremacy; and especially in that of M'Loughlin v. Walsh :

:

“A power of excommunication which was shown and admitted to be part of the discipline of the Church of Rome was held to be unlawful, on the ground that it was not within the power of any Church, by its discipline or otherwise, to deprive any subject of the realm of his civil rights, which were under the protection of the law.”

But, on the other hand, the spiritual subject of the Vatican maintains by doctrine, and by vigorous conduct—by every form of speech and every kind of overt act-that Antichrist, his spiritual lord:

"As successor of St. Peter inherits a jurisdiction as distinct from as it is unaccountable to human power."

Whereas during the reign of Elizabeth none dared so much as to mention even the supremacy of the Pope; and her oath of supremacy was imposed and sworn in support of this anti-Papal policy: whereas she would not suffer her subjects to be avowed Roman Catholics, in order that they might not be Papists and further, whereas this her policy was consummated and

perpetuated by our sovereigns William and Mary: whereas such were the foundations of our Protestant constitution, Now the Papist may lay his hand upon the Act 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, popularly known as the Act of Roman Catholic Emancipation, and say-By virtue of this legislative enactment, permission, and sanction, I may openly maintain and practically obey the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope-may set forth, uphold, maintain, and yield implicit obedience to his spiritual supremacy.

THE PREPARATORY STEPS TO THE ACT OF 1829.

Satan so inspires the Popish priesthood with that cunning which is necessary to their success, that it is impossible for human ken thoroughly to trace their complicated movements. But, though the secret springs of their juggling must remain hidden until He comes "who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts", yet we are able to follow some of its successive results. To do this is not absolutely necessary to our argument, but it is of such intrinsic interest, and will render our subject so much more complete, that we scarcely could omit it. At the same time, if we may judge from speeches, letters, and pamphlets, our Protestant advocates have need to be instructed on the subject. Some of these speak of our Protestant constitution as being inviolate until 1829; others regard it as yet being in all its pristine vigour; both are deeply in error.

Common-Law advocacy

of modern

Romanism.

England had scarcely established her complete deliverance from Rome ere the Liberals began to enslave her anew. Lord Eldon, "Lives of the Chancellors", vii., 512-13, with complaint, dates their machinations as far back as 1725. But, if his lordship had cause to complain of the Radicals, some members of his own profession were equally at fault. In the last century, Judge Blackstone broached, or re-echoed, that species of commonlaw infidelity upon which the Jesuits have raised their modern Anglo-Papal hierarchy. He writes, in Book iv., ch. 4 [55] :--

"As to Papists, what has been said of the Protestant Dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the Pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the aws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."

And at page [58]:

"If a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant, when all fears of a pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England but in every kingdom of Europe; it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts; at least till the civil principles of the Roman Catholics called again upon the legislature to renew them."

This is doctrine worthy of this enlightened age! There is anxiety for the security of the Crown, but none for the honour of Christ. The orthodox Dissenter and the apostate Papist are placed on an equal footing. It anticipates the compact of 1829-Assure us that you will not trouble our ease in things temporal, and we will give you full liberty to do what you like in those spiritual.

Yet Blackstone but uttered that which he had imbibed from the spirit of his times: when he was speaking England had begun to pay Romanism. From the Sentinel, June 23, 1855, we take the following quotation of a "Liverpool pamphlet":

England's first endowment

of modern Romanism.

"The first establishment and endowment of Romanism within the British dominions since the Reformation, began nearly one hundred years ago. By the heroism, the very heart's blood of the ever-memorable Wolfe, and the sagacity of the illustrious Chatham, in 1759 we began to conquer Canada from the French; and, after provisional arrangements, in 1763 we stipulated by the treaty called 'the Peace of Paris,' that while monasteries were to be suppressed, its Roman Catholic clergy should not only be protected in the continued enjoyment of their churches and church property, but should, moreover, have a legal right to tithes and dues from all Roman Catholic occupiers; all this was legalized by the 14th Geo. III., c. 83, passed in 1774; it was re-enacted by the 31 Geo. III., c. 31, passed in 1791, making further provisions as to grants of crown lands for clergy reserves.'

That paper sought to prove that this endowment was not national guilt; thus it allowed the truth of the historical fact. The culpability of the act admits of easy proof: Canada was won by the sword; what obligation, therefore, to pay its national apostacy? What is the argument now used in this respect with regard to our conquest of India? Did the Israelites, after they had sworn to the Gibeonites, allow them to continue in idolatry? And as to the plea :

"To admit Canadian Romanists to British citizenship under a covenant to recognise in far away Canada the religious status in quo of the people, can scarcely be said to have been an endowment or establishment of Romanism within the British dominions.' Such an endowment is exactly that recognition of Romanism which is condemned by the Act of Supremacy, 1 Eliz., c. 1. That Act embraced not only the then realms, but also all dominions which might in future accrue to the Crown. Sec. XVI. contains :

-

"No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, OR WITHIN ANY OTHER your Majesty's dominions or countries that NOW BE OR HEREAFTER SHALL BE."

Of course this can easily be reconciled with the contrary conduct; but it will demand the exercise of a little more ingenuity; and, this being done, then it will be quite time to make the author of the pamphlet "a present of his Canadian illustration".

The 14 Geo. III., c. 83, had scarcely stamped legal sanction on our first violation of our Protestant constitution, and our first overt act in favour of Antichrist, when the Papists won another advantage: Blackstone's aspirations were in part effected before they were expressed. He continues at page [58]:

Its first recogni

tion in England.

“This hath partly been done by statute 18 Geo. III., c. 60, with regard to such Papists as duly take the oath therein prescribed, of allegiance to his Majesty, abjuration of the Pretender, renunciation of the Pope's civil power, and abhorrence of the doctrines of destroying and not keeping faith with heretics, and deposing or murdering princes excommunicated by the authority of the See of Rome, in respect of whom only the statute 11 & 12 Will. III. is repealed, so far as it disables them from purchasing or inheriting, or authorizing the apprehending or prosecuting the Popish clergy, or subjects to perpetual imprisonment either them or any teachers of youth."

Thirteen years pass by, and the Papists obtain the toleration of their idolatrous apostasy. A note to the above extract says:

By the statute 31 Geo. III., c. 32, which may be called the Toleration Act of the Roman Catholics, all the severe and cruel restrictions and penalties enumerated by the learned judge, are removed from those Roman Catholics who are willing to comply with the requisitions of that statute."

Roman Catholics tolerated by 31

Geo. III., c. 32.

A downward progress is always rapid. Only five more years elapse, and in 1795 England endows Maynooth:

“In 1795 Maynooth was founded, and the demands of the priesthood

were

more than answered. They had simply asked permission to found

1 college; faction extorted a revenue of £8,000 from the Govern

ment.

-

Maynooth

endowed.

In the eighth report of the Commissioners of Education, made in subsequent years, a brief review is given of the state of Maynooth.

In the commencement, a portion of the college had been set apart for lay students ; but this had been discontinued, and the college was given up wholly to the training of the priesthood.

.

The original number of students was 50, this number had increased to 200.

F

or the first 21 years the Parliamentary grants had averaged £8,000 a-year. In 1808, the grant rose to £12,000, of which £5,000 were for buildings; in 1813, the grant was £9,637, at which it continued to the time of the report. The only Popish support to this

college was from a bequest by Lord Dunboyne, who, having been a Romish bishop, conformed to Protestantism; and on his death-bed recanted, leaving to the college a property amounting, in the end, to £500 a-year."

By these successive concessions England deliberately and legislatively abandoned the two essentials of her Protestant constitution, viz., her nontoleration of the Roman Catholic religion, and her absolute exclusion from the realm of the Pope's ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction. For, with respect to the last of these, it is to be observed that by the modification of the so-called oath of supremacy, and by the impunity covenanted to the ordinary priest, the Pope was permitted a constructive jurisdiction. Such tampering with our national support of Christ's truth could not but prove a poor preparation for future contests.

Spiritual blindness in 1825-6.

Every clergyman who cares to understand the secret principles and policy of the present Jesuitical Papal hierarchy in England should study the" Laws of the Papacy", by the Rev. R. J. M'Ghee. That work clearly demonstrates their iniquity, and painfully proves that their Satanic duplicity most easily triumphs over modern liberality. The following extracts reveal how they paved the way to the consummation of their hopes. They are part of the evidence of the Vatican prelates, Doyle, Curtis, and Murray, given before Committees of the Commons in 1825-6 :

Page 147.-"In what, and how far, does the Roman Catholic profess to obey the Pope?

"The Catholic professes to obey the Pope in matters which regard his religious faith, and in those matters of ecclesiastical discipline which have already been defined by the competent authorities.

"Does this obedience detract from what is due by the Catholic to the State?

"Not in the slightest degree. On the contrary, as the laws of God, which the Pope does enforce amongst Catholics, ordain that we should pay obedience to the existing government of the country where we dwell, so the obedience we owe to the Pope only tends to confirm us in our allegiance to such government.

"Does that justify the objection that is made to Catholics, that their allegiance is divided?

"I do not think it does in any way we are bound to obey the Pope in those things that I have already mentioned; but our obedience to the law, and the allegiance which we owe the sovereign, are complete, and full, and perfect, and undivided, inasmuch as they extend to all political, legal, and civil rights of the King, or of his subjects. I think the allegiance due to the King, and that due to the Pope, are as distinct and as divided in their nature as any two things can possibly be."

Page 179.-"Does the obedience that Catholics owe to the Pope detract from what is due by them to the State under which they live?

"By no means; we owe him no other than a spiritual authority, exercised according to the canons of the Church, not arbitrarily, but according to the canons of the Church; but we owe him no temporal obedience whatsoever.