"Has this assumption of titles been within the terms of the law? Is there any law forbidding the assumption of the title of bishop? A certain Dr. Dillon assumed it, and ordained what he called Presbyters, and no one thought of prosecuting him. The Moravians have bishops all over England; and so have the Irvingites, or Apostolicals; yet no one taxes them with illegality. Then our taking the title of bishops merely constitutes no illegality. Is there any law that forbids our taking the title from any place not being a See of an Anglican bishop? No one can say that there is.

"Then I ask those more learned in the law than myself, can an Act of a subject of Her Most Gracious Majesty which by law he is perfectly competent to do be an infringement of her Royal prerogative? If not, then I trust we may conclude that by this new creation of Catholic bishops that prerogative has not been violated.

"No one doubts that the bishops so appointed are Roman Catholic bishops, to rule over Roman Catholic flocks. Does the Crown claim the right, under its prerogative, of naming such bishops?

"It will be said that no limitation of jurisdiction is made in the Papal document, no restriction of its exercise to Catholics; and hence Lord John Russell and others conclude that there is in this brief 'a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway.' Every official document has its proper forms; and 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. Whether the Pope appoints a person vicar apostolic or bishop in ordinary, in either case he assigns him a territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and gives him no personal limitations. This is the practice of every church which believes in its own truth and in its duty of conversion. What has been done in this brief has been done in every one ever issued, whether to create a hierarchy or to appoint a bishop.”

The animus of these apologies first claims our notice: they breathe all that "moderation and temperateness" which, in 1846, Lord Lyndhurst pronounced would be "legal and proper": yet are they redolent of Papal hate. The wily foe knew it to be the moment of victory. He had but to argue ad hominem: his animosity would be the more gratified, as he very calmly appealed to our legislative sanction.

But on the continent, and in England in non-official documents, the Satanic virus burst forth in all its virulence. The Tractarians had taunted the Papists with being political nonentities: to repel this taunt to show that the Bull of Pio Nono was no mere formality-the leading Popish journal in England, i. e., the head Papists, published the following comment :

“In this act of Pope Pius IX. they have that open declaration for which they have been so long professing to look. 'Rome,' said they, 'has never yet formally spoken against us. Her bishops, indeed, are sent here, not as having any local authority, but as pastors without flocks; Bishops of Tadmor in the Desert, or of the ruins of Babylon, intruding into territories which they cannot formally claim as their own.' This specious argument is once for all silenced. Rome has more than spoken; she has spoken and acted! She has again divided our land into dioceses, and has placed over each a pastor, to whom all baptized persons, without exception, within that district, are openly commanded to submit

themselves in all ecclesiastical matters, under pain of damnation, and the Anglican sees, those ghosts of realities long passed away, are utterly ignored":

and the pet journal of the Jesuits published to the entire Papal polity of Europe the subjoined effusion of defiant contempt:

"Protestant England refuses the right to the Sovereign Pontiff of erecting episcopal sees, and of naming bishops in the direction of the British empire. Is it aware how the Holy See replies to the denials of heresy, to the clamour and threats of English Protestantism? Precisely by using the right and exercising the authority denied her . . . The Church does not discuss its rights with those who contend against it. It proves them by exercising them. Whatever Lord John Russell may say or do, the acts of the Holy See are irrevocable. The most Protestant of the English newspapers, those which regard the acts of the Head of Christianity as null and void, themselves render homage to that authority before which the Catholic world bows, for these do not designate the former Bishop of Melipotamus in partibus, when calling him Archbishop of Westminster. The fact of the creation of an Archiepiscopal See of Westminster thus imposes upon them, by its own evidence, the very things which they deny."-L'Univers, in Bell's Weekly Newspaper, January 11, 1851.

The degenerate Protestants of the age may strive to persuade themselves of peace, by resort to timorous, time-serving compliment; but they cannot change the character of the movement. If we ceased to cherish the blessings of the Constitution of 1688, the Papists had not forgotten their strategy. Three quarters of a century had they been counterworking in secret; in 1850 they unmask their attack, and issue is openly and eternally joined. Let the reader recall Morissy's definition of Emancipation; and then ponder England's present position.

The Papists prove their act to be lawful.

But the legal aspect of the argument is here our primary point. To pretermit all inferior protests, the Prime Minister, and several hundred members of the legal profession, had publicly and solemnly challenged the legality-not whether the movement could be enforced by law; but whether it did not violate prohibitory statutes—of the Pope's proceeding; and the Papists boldly accepted the challenge. In the face of England, and of Europe, they fully argued this point. The legal profession had said, the Pope's power has no existence in the eye of the law; this act therefore is a nullity: they were met by the sarcasm-Why then so much ado about nothing? The Prime Minister had threatened that the state of the law should be investigated the Papists proved that they knew that state with a familiar precision; and, that their organization had been specially provided for by an Act. The comprehensive protection of the common-law was highly extolled in 1846, here we see it set at nought by the superior provisions a statute. There was intimation of resort to penal restrictions and com pulsion the Papists defied any, and every, interference with the Act Emancipation. To this hour they more than maintain their position.

:

It was designed

that it should be so.

And, what in this should excite our astonishment? We may well be surprised at England's blind folly in making the fatal concession, and in forgetting her pro-Papal legislation; but we cannot wonder that the Papists should remember what she had given. Had they crept on by unsanctioned stealth, they must have remained silent. But since England "did give", why, from the very nature of the case she could not give, nor could the Papists in their apologies plead, less than legislative sanction.

Besides, this was precisely the thing which Sir Robert Peel designed. He said that his measure was purely political; but then he soon began to prove that it was also religious: so also he protested that there should be no recognition of, no dealings with, the Pope; but he soon uttered more self-contradiction. His words were:

.

He had no intention to propose an incorporation of the Roman Catholic religion with the State-he had no intention to give that Church a qualified establishment. He proposed that the Roman Catholic religion should be placed not on a footing of the Establishment, but upon the footing of Dissent.”

Now, every schoolboy knows that Dissent has long been part and parcel of our Constitution; that it has a legal status and toleration: so also with regard to Popery and submission to the spiritual supremacy of the Vatican, Sir Robert Peel thus designedly gave occasion for the subjoined description :

"The ecclesiastical constitution excludes all violence to other disciplines; allows every division of religious opinions to take its own way; and even suffers Popery, with all its hostility, to take its own way-to have its churches and chapels, its public services, its discipline, and all the formalities, however alien and obnoxious, which it deems important to its existence."

Thus have we traced that the present status of the Papists within the realm has been attained only by a long course of legislative action: and, specially, we have justified the heading of this section, thus clearly establishing our second main position :

THE TRUE SENSE

OF THE

NON-SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE NEW OATH

MOST ABSOLUTELY FALSIFIED

BY THE ACT

10 GEO. IV., cap. 7.

PART III.

COMMON-LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY ECCLESIASTICAL AND

SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION.

OUR last pamphlet elicited communications from several personally unknown correspondents of position, not one of whom raised any question as to the truth of its doctrine. Of these we subjoin one, in part as being AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT on the success of our argument, since its writer declares his willingness still to accept the oath; and, in part, as having had some influence in originating this portion of our subject.

"17th July, 1857.

"REV. AND DEAR SIR,-I am much obliged for the copy of your exceedingly interesting pamphlet on the oath of supremacy. I have read it carefully, and think you have fully made out your case-that the oath originally contemplated Romanists, and was designed for the purpose of utterly denying the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope in this country; and, furthermore, I conceive that you have distinctly proved that the Act of '29 has rendered the oath a falsehood in its original sense. Still I do not feel any difficulty in having taken the oath, nor would I in taking it again, because in the sense in which it was administered to me, in that sense I took it, and in that sense I would take it again. The fact is, in the lapse of time the original sense and design of the oath has been lost sight of. No bishop or law officer imposes the oath in the original sense. They themselves did not, could not, take it in that sense, nor does any one now take it in the sense of denying the notorious fact that the Pope does exercise spiritual jurisdiction over some millions of Papists. Hence I do not conceive we incur the crime of perjury, because in the generally, indeed I may say universally, accepted sense of the oath, it is perfectly true the Pope and his bishops have not a recognized legal spiritual jurisdiction as our bishops possess from the Crown; and this is all, I conceive, that is now meant. "Believe me, &c., &c.,

* *

The subscription of this unknown correspondent indicated a clergyman of position: his verdict only suffers from the necessary obligation of suppressing a name not subscribed with a view to publication.

This unsought tribute to the force of historical facts testifies to the defeat

a

of our earlier opponents. They did not admit that the original sense of the oath had been lost; but they did ridicule the idea that it should have been supposed ever to have had any other than their de jure sense. But now, competent umpire decides those arguments which were confidently described as "an expenditure of a vast deal too much time in maintaining an unprovable point", to have been an expression of historic truth. Such opponents are better furnished with volubility of expression than with knowledge of history, of ecclesiastical legislation, or with powers of perception. We suggest to them that they should really study the subject, that so they may be prepared for impending conflict.

As to whether the sense of the oath has by the lapse of time been wholly lost, the Debates of 1846, quoted above, should be compared with the Evening Mail, December 4-6, 1850, page 6; and with The Times, April 28, 1858, page 5, col. 5.

Has the true sense of the Oath been wholy lost?

The above apology for the administration and acceptance of the oath cannot obtain now: since it was written the oath has been re-imposed with reiterated professions of adherence to its original intent. What this sense was supposed to be has not been defined in the statute: but we may adduce the evidence of private expositions. These do not quite agree with that of our correspondent; and, inter se, they are, as to their matter, far more discordant; while, as to their principle, exact in agreement. This principle may be defined as the subjugation of Christ's ministers to lay spiritual democracy.

The evils of trifling with

It has been said, "There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would the substance of metals, and maketh of anything what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing" of this we have in the present case a perfect illustration.

the terms of the Oath.

:

We select two examples of this democratic spiritual doctrine, as asserted in explanation of the supposed sense of our oath. The Rev. S. G. Potter argued :

"I fully agree with your correspondent 'B.' in his view; and would here again declare, what I asserted on the Scottish platform, that I am ready again to swear, ex animo, that the Pope hath no jurisdiction in this realm, and further to assert that nothing but an Act of Parliament can give it to him."

And, in The Times, June 16, 1857, Mr. Napier was reported as having debated :

"He denied that any Roman Catholic bishop had jurisdiction in Ireland. No jurisdiction could proceed except from the Crown. The Pope might send over a bishop, but his orders could not be legally enforced."

These cases obviously turn on the word "jurisdiction"; and they trifle