« PreviousContinue »
shown, that this canon, if, as to its temporal provisions, it ever was in force, does not now exist. Such a denial is therefore perfectly unnecessary.
2.-It has, however, been given. A few lines will place this beyond controversy.
I beg you to recollect the total disregard shown to Pope Innocent's protestation against the treaty of Westphalia ; the Gallican declaration of 1682; and the oaths of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics, by which the universal temporal dominion of the Pope is absolutely denied.
I request you to observe, that I use the words “ universal temporal dominion of the Pope," because they are your words. In my use of them, I 'wish them considered to extend also to any temporal dominion whatsoever beyond the limits of his own realm.
3.–Now, mark my TWO SYLLOGISMS.
I.-It is the universal opinion of the Roman Catholic church, that whenever the church of any country professes a religious' doctrine,--and the Roman see, and the other Roman Catholic churches, being apprised and aware of her holding it, continue in communion with her,-the Roman see, and the Church of Rome, acknowledge that the doctrine so professed by that church, is consistent with the the faith of the Roman Catholic church :
But, the Gallican declaration of 1682,--the disregard of Pope Innocent's protestation against the peace of Westphalia, and the oaths of the English, Irish,' and Scottish Roman Catholics, are explicit
and unqualified disclaimers of the Pope's temporal dominion ;-and the Roman see and the other Roman Catholic churches, have been apprised of them from the first to the present time;- yet the Roman see, and the other Roman Catholic churches, have always been in communion with the churches, and the states, in which these explicit and unqualified disclaimers have been made:
Therefore, the Roman see and the Roman Catholic church have acknowledged and do acknowledge, that this disclaimer of the Pope's temporal dominion is consistent with the faith of the Roman Catholic Church :
II.-Now, if the Pope, or the Roman Catholic Church, can, in the opinion of Roman Catholics, absolve or discharge them from the oaths of allegiance and disclaimer taken by them, it can only be, because those oaths contain something contrary to the faith of the Roman Catholic Church :
But, by communicating perseverantly with the churches in which these oaths of allegiance and disclaimer have been taken, the Roman see and the Roman Catholic church, acknowledge that these oaths of allegiance and disclaimer accord with the faith of the Roman Catholic church :
Therefore,-neither the Pope nor the Roman Catholic Church can absolve or discharge Roman Catholics from these oaths of allegiance and disclaimer.
It remains only to observe, -that this acknowledgment of the Pope and the univeral church, is equipollent to a decree of a conncil; and is, in one sense, more than equipollent to it, as the church is the principal, or instituant; the council is its representative, or instituted organ.
Thus, my propositions are proved. You have all you have called for. The Pope and the universal church have acknowledged, as fully and as explicitly as can be done by words or deeds, that they have no authority, human or divine, to absolve the members of the Roman Catholic Church from their oaths of allegiance. Their allegiance therefore is valid, and may be depended upon.
“ I have heard,” said the Earl of Liverpool, in the debate upon the Catholic question in the year 1810, “ allusions this night to doctrines, “ which I do hope, no man now believes the “ Catholics to entertain; nor is there any ground “ that the question is opposed on any such pretence. THE EXPLANATIONS, WHICH HAVE
VIEW OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM.
1.--I EVIDENTLY meant, that what I said upon this subject in “ The Book of the Roman Catholic “ Church,” should not be considered as a theological discussion of the truth of her doctrines : I merely wished to present a succinct 'account of some which are objected to by Protestants, for the purpose of showing that these contained nothing inconsistent with morality or good government; and that this had been acknowledged, in many instances, by Protestant writers of distinction. Upon this part of my work, You and others have attacked it. Thus the subject is before the public, and to their conclusions upon it I shall leave it.
With some observations, however, I shall now
2.- The Roman Catholic religion satisfied the reason of such men at Bossuet, Fénélon, Bourdaloue, Massillon, d’Aguésseau and Pascal. If I deserve what You intimate in this letter, (p. 101, 102), for my belief of her doctrines, may I not comfort myself with the thought, that all you say applies as much to those great men as to me?
In page 107, I find this sentence addressed to me,—“I omit your sneer at the amount of a proc
Il tor's bill. It was not made with your usual cour
tesy; neither was it relative or necessary.” My letter contains no sneer : and I am quite confident, that there is not in the profession even one person, who will believe that any thing I have written contains a sneer at any class of its members, or any individual member of it.-Was your remark relative or necessary
? 3.-In page 138, You say." You are incorrect “ in your assertion, that the Howards and Stour“ tons are excluded from Parliament, merely be“ cause of their belief in transubstantiation. They
are so excluded, because the assertors of this “ doctrine are said to render imperfect allegiance “ to their sovereign.”
The allegiance of the Howards and the Stourtons to their sovereign, is perfect.
They consider it the grossest of affronts, to be told that it is not. * Allegiance to the Pope is perfect nonsense.
* Addresses of the present writer to the Public, upon the “ Coronation Oath," and the alleged " Divided Allegiance of *** the Roman Catholics," are inserted in the Appendix.