Page images
PDF
EPUB

suspicious that the very persons who have always most strenuously and most unscrupulously opposed Nonconformist principles, should now be the loudest to implore Nonconformist aid. It is suspicious that a rich and all-powerful Establishment should raise the cry against the Church of the ignorant and the poor. The Presbyterian who is old enough to remember 1829, may well pause before he ranges himself by the side of Cumming and M'Neile.

For ourselves, after much attention devoted to the matter, we profess our inability to discover why the present uproar should not have been raised at any period since the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act as well as now. Daily have we perused the Times, from first advertisement to printer's name, and Bishops' charges, parochial meetings and Protestant correspondence, have been a veritable" weariness of the flesh." Our table is now covered with pamphlets of every size and colour, the Bishop of London's " Charge" advancing in solemn array against Cardinal Wiseman's "Appeal,-D'Israeli and Punch skirmishing against the Premier and the Papal Bull. Dr. Newman's sermon supplies eloquence, and a dozen Unitarian sermons honest logic and kindly good sense, to the heap. But at least half the fighting is wide of the point destined to be lost and won. Dr. Cumming perseveringly quotes Liguori to shew that the Romish Church authorizes lying, and then contrives to get into so disreputable a controversy touching the Cardinal's oath, that the Times refuses to admit his letters. Lord Fielding, the Bishop of St. Asaph and the church at Partasa, supply an agreeable episode. The massacre of St. Bartholomew is raked up for the sake of maintaining kindly feeling; and the celebrated "Ugonnotorum Strages" medal re-issued, at the low price of sixpence, that it may be within the means of every pious Protestant. And the sum-total of the impression which we have gained from the events of the last month is, that the Pope has been arrogant, yet singularly injudicious, the English Premier in want of an election cry, the Evangelical clergy rabid, the Tractarians cowardly, and the orthodox Dissenters, for the most part, forgetful of their boasted principles. Yet, at the same time, among the Protestant laity of England a feeling, whether ill or well grounded, has been awakened, which is ample security against any really formidable Papal aggression.

The facts of the case are soon told. The Church government of the Catholics in England has hitherto been anomalous. They have been ruled by Vicars Apostolic, who, being Bishops only in partibus, were the immediate delegates of the Pope, from whom no appeal lay save to him. At the request of these Vicars and of English Catholics in general, Pius IX., by a Bull "given at St. Peter's at Rome, under the seal of the Fisherman, the 24th of September, 1850," constituted England "one single ecclesiastical province, with an Archbishop and twelve Suffragans." The titles of these sees are all different from those of the Anglican Bishops, and so far the letter of the law is respected. Dr. Wiseman, heretofore Vicar Apostolic and Bishop of Melipotamus, is by a subsequent act created Cardinal Priest of St. Pudentiana and Archbishop of Westminster. And hence the first count of the indictment-namely, that the appointment of Bishops with territorial desig nations is an offence against the Queen's Supremacy. But the manner of the act has made the act itself doubly offensive. The Bull knows

of but one "Church of England," one hierarchy. The Reformation is the "Anglican schism of the sixteenth century." Cardinal Wiseman addresses his first Pastoral Letter to "the Clergy, Secular and Regular, and the Faithful of the Archdiocese of Westminster and the Diocese of Southwark." In the same document he announces his intention of governing and continuing "to govern the counties of Middlesex, Hertford and Essex, as Ordinary thereof, and those of Surrey, Sussex, Kent, Berkshire and Hampshire, with the islands annexed, as Administrator with ordinary jurisdiction." And a Roman Catholic Prelate, in a document, to which we have not now the opportunity of referring, has claimed, consistently enough with the principles of his Church, spiritual authority over all the baptized persons in his diocese. The Pope ignores the Christianity of England, and chooses to treat it as a heathen country now reconciled to his sway. Hinc illæ lacrymæ.

Now there is no doubt that the storm of feeling has been raised by this insult, while, nevertheless, the argumentative passage of arms has taken place touching the legal offence. And here we think the Catholic case is complete. They allege that the position which they at present occupy is only the legal development of that assured to them by the Act of Emancipation. They have always denied the Royal Supremacy. The effect of that Act was to take away certain civil disabilities attendant upon the denial. They have always acknowledged the Supremacy of the Pope, and therefore carefully distinguished between the things of Cæsar and the things of God. There is no law to forbid the appointment of Roman Catholic Bishops in England, but only one which prohibits their taking their designations from sees at present occupied by the English Church. That law has been literally adhered to. The Protestant agitators affirm that Romish casuistry has dictated this adoption of the letter of a law, which ought to have been interpreted according to its spirit. The Catholics triumphantly reply that legal interpretation is in its essence literal. If, then, the present 66 aggression' " be an offence against the law, it is no new one, but necessarily consequent on the toleration of Catholics at all.

But the outworks of the Catholic case are no less strong than its

legal citadel. The Queen's Supremacy extends over Ireland and the colonies, yet there Roman Catholic Bishops have been appointed without exciting any storm of indignation. The Irish Bishops, Catholic and Protestant, preside over the same sees. Archbishops Whately and Murray peaceably occupy the same diocese of Dublin. Within a very few years the Pope has created a new Bishopric of Galway. More, the English Government have gone so far as to concede to Irish Roman Catholic Prelates the titles of Most Reverend and Right Reverend, and to give them precedence over the temporal peers of the country. Who could have supposed that the creation of a less ambitious hierarchy in England would have been called insolent, insidious, illegal? Again, in 1845, the now zealous Premier-not then seduced from the "mummeries of superstition" at St. Barnabas by the superior attraction of Crown Court said in his place in Parliament, He believed that they might repeal those disallowing clauses which prevented a Roman Catholic Bishop assuming a title held by a Bishop of the Established Church. He could not conceive any good ground for the continuance of this restriction." In 1846, he repeated the declaration: "As to

[ocr errors]

preventing persons assuming particular titles, nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep up such a distinction." A copy of the Papal Brief was shewn, two years ago, to Lord Minto, when on his mysterious Italian tour. The whole scheme was long ago known to the Government, who neither protested nor forbade. And as to the substitution of Bishop for Vicars Apostolic, the change is one likely to insure an increase of English feeling in the Roman Catholic hierarchy. A Vicar Apostolic is the immediate delegate of the Italian Priest whose domination is so dreaded by Protestant zealots, owing immediate obedience to him, and removable at his pleasure. The Bishops are to a great extent independent of the Pope,-once appointed, cannot be displaced, and, Englishmen by birth, are likely to remain so in feelings, habits and allegiance. And, as for the territorial designations, there were Vicars Apostolic of York, Lancaster and London: two of them, therefore, competitors with English Bishops in their own sees.

At the same time it cannot be denied that the present controversy is not only one of law and toleration, but of feeling. We must admit that there is more in it than at first meets the eye. There are reasons why the Papal movement should have been made just at this moment. Our readers do not need to be reminded of the prevalence in the Establishment of opinions called Tractarian, nor to be instructed as to their nature. Their tendency has been sufficiently exemplified by the practice and ceremonies lately introduced into the services of the Church, and the numerous conversions made to Catholicism. Nevertheless, a bold move on the part of the Pope was necessary to secure certain waverers, who yet halted on the brink of Anglicanism, trying to persuade themselves of the essential identity of the two Churches, and thus cleansing their consciences of the guilt of schism. Rome has therefore spoken, and the English Reformation is now "the schism of the 16th century." Whether or not Pius IX. was misled as to the extent of open or secret Romanism in the country, or expected that at a word the State of England would hasten to be reconciled with the Holy See, we know not. Converts are not multiplied as yet, and even the Tractarian clergy seem disposed to defend the validity of their own orders.

Notwithstanding the noisy invectives against Catholic doctrine and practice, which for many years past have formed a large element in socalled Evangelical preaching, the Church of England, by her adherence to the clumsy fiction of Apostolical Succession, has always been compelled to acknowledge more or less the claims of the Church of Rome. For there is the fountain whence her own orders are derived, and her utmost claim has been to a co-ordinate station in the great Christian community. A Roman Catholic priest needs no re-ordination to exercise ecclesiastical functions in England: the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is a layman in the eyes of the Pope. And hence may be explained the position taken up in the controversy by the Bishop of Oxford and his Tractarian followers. The Bishop of Rome has ignored them. They put forth equal claims with himself. Though dishonestly eating the bread of Protestantism, they had chosen to forget Protestant principles. They had set up the small infallibility of Oxford against the great infallibility of Rome. And lo! to their infinite disgust, Rome declines to fraternize, and claims their allegiance as peremptorily as

that of the lowest Evangelical-confounds them with Calvinist and Socinian in the one sweeping charge of schism.

The Bishop of Exeter, another Prelate who has been long encouraging Romish principles and practices in the Church, yet whose zeal is now startled into protest, chooses, with Rev. G. A. Denison and Archdeacon Wilberforce, the present opportunity for taking up a middle position between Canterbury and Rome-in short, for becoming a Dissenter. He denies equally the Supremacy of the Queen and the Pope. He acknowledges, like every Dissenter, Christ to be the sole Head of his Church. On these grounds he refuses to sign the protest transmitted to her Majesty by the Episcopal Bench, and forwards a private memorial of his own. Nevertheless, as that memorial is a denial of Royal privilege and an unwarrantable assertion of private right, Sir George Grey decided, properly enough, that the Queen could not receive it. So then, as far as the Bishop of Exeter and his party are concerned, the quarrel is reduced simply to a squabble between rival hierarchies. If to deny the Royal Supremacy be an offence against the law, they offend equally. And the Dissenter, who acknowledges neither civil nor hierarchical supremacy in matters of conscience, may leave them, with a smile, to settle it as they please. The only Protestant feeling which we are inclined to respect is that which has been displayed by the Evangelical Church and the orthodox Dissenters. We believe that they are igno

rant of the true nature of the position for which they contend; that in many cases they have fought with the unholiest weapons of controversy; that they have been struck with a most unreasonable panic; but, nevertheless, that the struggle is, on their side, for the vital principles of religion which they dearly prize, less than for an insult to a hierarchy or the pretensions of a Church.

There is, however, a question which may be very advantageously put to those persons who feel and complain of the insult,-What practical end do you propose to yourselves in this agitation? It is, in fact, a remarkable characteristic of the resolutions, addresses and protests which the present occasion has called forth, that they none of them even hint at the course which their proposers wish to be adopted. In some of the answers which her Majesty is about to give to deputations from the Universities and other public bodies, the Government may afford some indication of its intention; but such intention will have the merit of being perfectly spontaneous. The Premier has committed himself by his unfortunate letter; had he held his peace, he might have thrown the responsibility of proposing any legislative measure on her Majesty's opposition. And now what is to be done? An insult offered by any foreign power to the Queen of England, if not explained away by the artifices of diplomacy, is usually revenged by fleets and armies. We do not choose to accredit an ambassador to the Papal Court, and the idea of declaring war against the Pope would be too absurd for all but Lord Winchelsea. But a law may be passed to prohibit the assumption of these offensive titles. And what then? No law can touch the spiritual power of the Pope or his Cardinal in England. The indictment against it can be brought only in foro conscientiæ. The law may not recognize any such Prelate as the Bishop of Birmingham; may threaten Dr. Ullathorne with pains and penalties if he retain the title; but cannot take away from him one tittle of influence over the Catholics in the

diocese assigned him by the Pope. The rival diocesan, the Bishop of Worcester, is in a very different position. He has a large income, a splendid residence, extensive patronage, and a seat in the House of Lords. A Dissenting majority in Parliament might have a very practical effect on these episcopal rights and privileges; but under any reforming or persecuting enactments, the rival Bishops would continue to claim undivided spiritual jurisdiction over the diocese, and Mr. Kentish and Mr. Dawson equally to ignore the claim. In brief, if an offence has been committed against the law, let the alleged offenders be brought into the ordinary courts, though not before the magistrate who has already taken it upon him to prejudge the question: if the result be an acquittal, let us not tarnish Catholic Emancipation by an ex-post-facto measure of persecution.

The point now in dispute is, however, far from being a new one. It is as old as Stephen Langton even in England; in Germany it dates back to Gregory VII. and Henry VI. Even Catholic princes have always claimed the right of investing the Bishops of their kingdoms with at least their temporalities. Disputes with Rome have been hot and long, but have always ended in a Concordat. And this is, in fact, the only practical solution of the question. It would be an undoubted hardship if the Roman Catholic Church in England were to be prohibited a government after their own fashion. We have already shewn that the essence of such government-namely, the spiritual power of their ecclesiastical dignitaries-cannot be touched by legal enactment; yet, at the same time, the existence of a body of Prelates, possessing no little power, direct and indirect, in the country, yet owning some species of allegiance and looking for promotion to a foreign potent, must in many cases be an anomaly most inconvenient to the Legislature. Nor is an instance to point the moral wanting. It seems probable that the Pope and his Synod of Thurles will, for a time at least, get the better of the Queen and her Irish Colleges. The remedy is not difficult to be found, though at the same time unpalatable enough to Protestant zealots. Let the English Government, like that of Prussia, look upon the Popedom and Roman Catholicism as undoubted facts, necessary to be taken into account in legislation; and let them, by the establishment of diplomatic relations with Rome, secure the appointment of Prelates, Englishmen in birth, education and feeling.

But,

Whatever, then, may be the legislative result of the present agitation, the Catholic hierarchy is, in our view, a thing that no law can reach. A territorial hierarchy can never exist-a pretended territorial hierarchy may be forbidden. But in conceding the right of Catholics as such to inhabit the same island, the Protestant majority has of necessity given them also the right of self-government in their own manner. nevertheless, a deeper question than any yet agitated underlies this whole strife, one which all Protestant governments have already been called upon to answer practically, though perhaps unconsciously,-Can Catholics be good citizens of a Protestant state? Thousands would at the present moment unhesitatingly answer in the negative. Like the Dissenters, they deny the Royal Supremacy; unlike the Dissenters, they acknowledge Supremacy of a foreign Prince. Allegiance is indivisible; for if the attempt be made, the result is but a perpetual difficulty to distinguish between the things of Cæsar and of God. And whenever

« PreviousContinue »