Page images
[ocr errors]

•ommunity from the pale of the con-
stitution, are substantially as follow :
1. Because about six hundred years
ago, the Fourth Council of Lateran pub-
lished a false and wicked canon, autho-
rizing the deposition by the Pope of all
heretical princes. -
2. Because, at a still more recent pe-
riod, four centuries only distant, the
Council of Constance passed an impious
and detestable decree—that faith was not
to be kept with heretics.
To these charges of political and polemi-
cal malevolence, the liberal of both com-
munions thus reply:—The Fourth Council
of Lateran was convened at a period of
the deepest mental darkness, by one of the
most ambitious Pontiffs that ever filled
the Papal chair, Innocent III. And it
is true, that by the third canon of this
council, the deposing power of the Pope
was affirmed. But it is equally true,
that this famous canon was rejected by
every state in Europe, in the very zenith
of the Papal authority. A radical dis-
tinction has always been made by the
ecclesiastical jurists between canons of
doctrinal decision, and such as relate to
matters of discipline and government,
which require the formal acceptation of
national churches and states to give them
validity; and it is allowed that the two
first canons only of this council are of
the former description. “ Non docent
Catholici,” says the great Bossuet, “qua:-
cunque gesta sunt in conciliis, ea ad
ecclesiæ fidem pertinere—Multa sunt
decreta qua non pertinent ad invaria-
bilem fidei regulam—sed sunt accommo-
data temporibus atque negotiis.” Doubt-
less some individual Pontiffs, as Gre-
gory VII. Innocent III. and Boniface
VIII., not merely asserted in the ab-
stract, but attempted to realize this
monstrous pretension; and some scholastic
easuists, obsequiously attached to the
court of Rome, have daringly defended
them; but the Roman Catholic church,
as such, is no more responsible for the
pernicious maxims of Aquinas, or Bellar-
mine, than the church of Scotland for the
fanaticism of Knox, or that of England
for the barbarities of Laud. Without
question, the Catholics have largely par-
ticipated in the general illumination of
the times in which we live, but these
maxims were resolutely opposed even in
the most benighted ages. The perse-
vering resistance of the Emperors of the
House of Swabia to the Papal claims, fills
many interesting pages of history which
also records the more successful conflicts
of the Gallic monarchs, and the final

Remarks on Catholic Enancipation.

*05 triumph of Philip Le Bel over Boniface VIII, who in terms of unparalleled arrogance had, in a letter addressed to the King, in an early stage of that memorable quarrel (A.D. 1301,) said, “We give you to know that you are our subject both in spirituals and temporals.” To which Philip replied, “We give your foolship to know, Sciat faluitas vestra, that in temporals we are subject to no person.” A peremptory requisition from the same Pontiff, so conspicuous in history, to our own renowned Edward I. to desist from his expedition against Scotland, which the Pope affirmed to be a fief of the church, was referred by the King to the Barons, who, with true baronial spirit, thus replied:—“Our Lord the King shall not plead before you, nor submit to any trial or enquiry, or send any mes. sengers to your court, especially as such proceedings would be in manifest disinherison of the rights of the crown of England, and the prejudice of the liberties, customs, and laws, which we have inherited from our fathers, and with the assistance of God will defend.” The English statutes of Provisors and Praemumire, evince how undauntedly these rights were defended by the same watchful guardians against papal encroachments: and how vast is the interval between a recognition of spiritual authority, and a transfer of civil allegiance, Louis IX. of France, stiled St. Louis, who flourished in the same century, was deeply imbued with all the superstitions of the age in which he lived; but he was a great man and a great monarch, and he it was who first promulgated (A.D. 1268) that famous pragmatic sanction which established on a basis, never to be shaken, the liberties of the Gallican church. The council of Constance, convened at the commencement of the fifteenth century, expressly decreed, “that Kings and Princes, by God's ordinance, are not subject in temporals to any ecclesiastical powers; neither can their subjects be freed from fealty and obedience;” and this was confirmed by the subsequent council of Basil. Towards the close of that century, the pragmatic sanction of St. Louis, which seemed from the lapse of time somewhat obsolete, was revived and enforced b Louis XII., a name still held in the highest veneration. “The Gallican church,” says the learned Jortin, speaking of this transaction, “adhering to the decrees of the councils of Constance and


[ocr errors]

Basil, suffered not the Porto, to pro-
certi beyond the bounds fixed by those
fathe; s.”
The barbarous bigotry of Louis XIV.
stands recorded in characters of blood.
Yet under the authority of this royal
persecutor, was convened, A.D. 1682,
that national synod, whence issued the
celebrated declaration, drawn by the
pen of Bossuet ; and containing a sum-
roary of the liberties of the Gollican, a.d
virtually of all other :ational cl.arches.
The first articie, registerco in the sco eral
parliaments and uti.ersities of the
is:gdom, pronouncos, “that the power
which Jesus Christ has given to St. Peter
and his successors, vicars of Christ,
relates only to spiritual things, and those
which concern salvation, and not to
things civil and temporai : so that in tem-
porals, Kings and Princes are not subject
to the ecclesiastical power, and cannot
directly or indirectly be deposed by the
power of the keys; or their subjects dis-
charged by it from the obedience which
they owe to their sovereigns, or from
their oaths of allogiance.” Throughout
the whole extent of Catholic christen-
dom, this principle is received as in-
dubitable. a
The fourth council of Lateran, by the
concurrent testimonies of history, was
held in abject subjection by the Pope.
M. Paris informs us, that Innocent
having caused seventy articles to be read
before the council, commanded the
fathers to receive them without entering
into any examination. Dupin remarks,
that the authority of divors canons
passed in this council has been much
questioned. Innocent is accused by
Platina of having produced decrecs in.
the council which were never ratified;
and the candid Fleury observes, “that
this Pope, by extending his authority
beyond its just limits, made it odious.
Let us not (says he) pretend to justify
excesses of which we see both the causes
and wretched effects.” The power of
the Papacy was now at the height.
Kings and Councils were equally con-
temned by the Roman Pontists. But
from the aora of the exile and death of
Boniface VIII., the tide of public opi-
nion began to turn; and the council of
Constance, so formidable to the Holy
See, and so hostile to its pretensions,
avenged the quarrel of the council of
Driven by the irresistible evidence
of facts from this post, the enemies
of the Catholics entrench themselves
in another position, viz. that the council
of Constance maintained as a general

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

maxim, “ that faith was not to be kept with heretics:” and they insinuate that it still remains a tenet of the Catholic church, that oaths and promises so taken are not binding upon the conScience. Why then do not the Catholics take every oath which the exhaustiess ingenuity of suspicion can devise? Either ti.ey are at present excluded by these local precautions from the full partici:a'ion of the Constitution, or they are not. If they are not, we concede nothing by acceding to the Catholic claims; if they are, the imputation is a gross and groundless calumny, and the refutation may be thought superfluous of a charge, which even those who make it cannot believe; but truth requires the statement of the historical fact. Unquestionably the violation of the safe-conduct granted by the Emperor Sigismond, to the renowned confessor, John Huss, will remain to future ages an indelible stigma on the name of the Council of Constance. But even in this extraordinary instance, that assembly, far from acting upon any general rule that faith was not to be kept with heretics,

merely contended that the Emperor,

having exceeded the limits of his province in granting a safe-conduct to a person changed with heresy, and summoned before the council, it was in its own nature null and void. And in their nineteenth session, the famous decree passed, “That though a protection were granted by the Emperor to heretics, such grant ought not to be deemed a reason why the Ecclesiastical Court should not take cognizance of their opinions, and punish them if they appeared to persist in them. And because, by granting safeconducts, the Prince might impede the course of canonical proceedings, he shall not be held by any promise made to screen heretical convicts from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And the Prince, from whom the safe-conduct had been obtained, having done all he could on his part to observe his engagement, was under no farther obligation.” The councii, therefore, as an abstract truth, acknowledged that faith ought to be kept with heretics; and that the Emperor having pledged his faith, was personally bound to maintain it inviolate; but the council not being a party to the engagement, disclaimed all participation in the obligation. Had the safe-conduct been granted with the concurrence of that assembly, thirsting as it appears to have done for innocent blood, its validity would not have been impeached.


But where is the Catholic who would now hesitate to express his detestation of this nefarious deed, which was probably viewed at the time by a great majority of mankind with secret horror It is related, that when the martyr Huss was delivered into the hands of the council, he fixed his eyes steadily upon the Emperor; who, conscious of the infamy he was about to incur, was observed to blush. A century after this, his successor in the empire Charles V. being importuned by Eccius and other savage bigots to violate the safe-couduct granted by him to Luther, to attend the dict at Worms, nobly replied, “I will not blush with my predecessor Sigismond.” In opposition to the calumnies of malice and ignorance, it is gratifying to collect some of the testimonies in favour of the Catholics, offered by persons emiment for their talents and virtues in the protestant communion. At an early W. of the last century, Archbishop ake hesitated not, in his correspondence with M. Dupin, to express his esteem for Christians of the Catholic communion in very cordial terms; acknowledging that, in the doctrine of the church of Rome, as explained by M. Dupin, who was not indeed considered as in all points perfectly orthodox, there was no essential difference of opinion between them. To use the learned prelate's own words, “In dogmatibus prout à te candidè proponuntur, non admodum dissentimus: in regimine ecclesiastica minus; in fundamentalibus seu doctrinam, sew disciplinam spectes, via omnino.” It has indeed been frequently and justly observed, that ail denominations of Christians agree in matters of infinitely more consequence than those in which they differ; and none of those differences assuredly are so great as to be incompatible with that genuine unity of Christians, which, as an iii 13trious ornament of the Anglican church, Dr. Clarke, has remarked, “does not consist in the unity of faith in the bond of ignorance, or in the unity of profession in the bond of persecution, but in the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” “I think,” says the celebrated Dr. S. Johnson, “all Christians, whether Pa. pists or Protestants, agree in the essential articles.” And again, “all denominations of Christians have really little difference in point of doctrins, though they may differ widely in their external forms.” He severely reprobated “ the barbarous debilitating policy of the Bri.

tish government respecting the Catholics of it!and, saying, it was the most detestable mode of persecution.” “Without justice to the Catholics,” says the late Bishop Law, “there can be no security for the Protestant establishment.” “Our Constitution,” says Mr. Burke, in a passage directly referring to the case of the Catholics, and for its excellence often quoted, “is not made for great, general, and proscriptive exclusions: sooner or later it will, and must destroy them, or they will destroy the Constitution.” The present Bishop of Landaff, in a visitatorial charge, has expressed, in energetic language, his approbation of the great measure of Catholic emancipation. “A measure calculated,” says that venerable prelate, “above all others, to support the independence of the country, to secure the stability of the throne, to promote peace among fellow subjects, and charity among fellow Christians.” Dr. Bathurst, bishop of Norwich, in reply to the grateful and pathetic address of the Catholics, presented to him in Dublin, thus eloquently avows his sentiments: “I consider your cause as the cause of civil and religious liberty, neither of which can be said to exist in perfection in any country where thousands of individuals are excluded, on account of their religion, from those offices of honour or emolument, an equal eligibility to which I have been always taught to consider, and shall never cease to consider, as ranking among the common rights of loyal and dutiful subjects, under whatever denomination of Christians they may coma, provided they give to the civil government under which they live air adequate security for their conduct as civil Subjects. And who, gentlemen, will presume to say that you have not done this, who has read the declaration made by 39 many honest men, and the oath taken by so many conscientious Christians ?” His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, in his speech on the Catholic questicu, April 1812, observed, “that the state had no right to exercise its authority over the private opinions of individuals, but merely to notice those acts which may endanger and disturb the ragolarity and good order of the community. We have always the means of creating preventive laws, but legislators had better direct their tests against the political principles which they wish to exclude, than to encounter them through the medium of religious tenets: Political

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Political disabilities, founded on a diffe-
rence of opinion in matters of religious
belief, are ready instruments in the hands
of the factious and disaffected. And such
invidious and unjust distinctions must
ever, more or less, keep up animosities
destructive of social happiness and social
Peace. It is therefore just, expedient,
and necessary, to remove them.” Such
sentiments, as these add dignity to the
highest rank, and equally adorn the prince
and the patriot.
If then the religion of the Catholics is
no bar to their loyalty, with what colour
of reason can it be made the pretext for
divesting them of the rights which apper-
tain to faithful subjects? Are the disa-
bilities to which they are liable heavy
and oppressive Then is the government
which imposes them chargeable with fla-
grant injustice. Are those disabilities, on
the other hand, as some affect to style
them, slight and trivial? It is plain that
in proportion to the decrease of the injus-
tice is the increase of the folly. On each
*ide of the dilemma the policy is deplo-
rable, and the mischief incalculable.
These positions appear so evident, that,
uninstructed by experience, it might well
be imagined they could meet with no op-
position. But alas ! the plainest truths
most need to be enforced; and so weak
is the impression usually made by the
strongest arguments, that one is tempted
to say with Montesquieu, “Lorsqu'il s'a-
git de prouver des choses claires, on est sur
de me pas convaincre "
Prejudice is in league with prejudice,
and the resources of error are inexhausti-
ble. “Shall we rashly remove all re-
straints,” it is said, “from the professors
of a religion of uncharitableness, which
consigns all who are out of the pale of
the Catholic church to everlasting mise-
ry –of a religion of persecution, which
still mourns over its extinguished fires
and broken wheel? To tolerate popery,
as we are solemnly warned, is to tolerate
But may not the Catholics retort the
accusation o Do we not in one of our
national creeds, publicly and frequently
rehearsed, exclude from salvation all who
dare to deviate from its scholastic and
incomprehensible dogmas? But the en-
lightened in both communions well know
with what latitude such denunciations
ought to be understood. In a tract re-
cently circulated under the sanction of
the Irish Catholic - prelacy, entitled,
“Charity and Truth,” it is taught, and
, the writer cites the first authorities in
touffirmation of his doctrine, “that it is

Remarks on Catholic Emancipation.

the perversely wilful opposer of the faith,
as received by the Roman Catholis
church, who in the judgment of that
church is guilty of heresy. If the convic-
tion of the mind sincerely resists the ex-
position of the principles of Roman com-
munion after a candid search for truth,
where that resistance is involuntary, no
well-informed Catholic will pronounce
against him the formidable sentence of
eternal exclusion from salvation. In-
voluntary error is not exclusive, and the
church has its concealed children in the
sects separate from its unity.” This truly
Christian principle he happily corrobo-
rates by the following passage from the
great St. Augustine: “If they who hold
an opinion in itself false and perverse,
maintain it with no pertinacious obsti-
macy; if they have not been misled by
their own presumptuous audacity, but
have received their error from seduced
or lapsed parents; if they be serious and
diligent enquirers after truth, and mani-
fest a disposition to yield to it when found
by them, soch persons are on no accouns
to be set down as heretics.” As to the
latter part of the charge, is intolerance.
the characteristic of the Catholic religion
only? Wiere is the protestant church
free from the stain of this guilt? But in-
tolerance was the vice not of the Catho-
lic or protestant religion as such, but of
the dark and direful ages that are past.
Were not Luther, Cranmer, and Calvin,
persecutors as well as Gardiner and Bon-
ner Erasmus was perhaps the only man
of those times exempt from the taint of
intolerance. 'The doctrine of universal
toleration is the just boast of modern sa-
gacity, and the Catholics have as much
right to glory in their Sarpis, their Fe-
melons, and Courayers, as the protes-
tants in their Lockes, their Hoadleys,
and their Jortins. - -
Undoubtedly this great and noble prin-
ciple has of late years made a rapid and
accelerated progress. Many have beeu
the friends gained to the Catholic cause,
and not one of them perhaps has been
again lost. In one possible case only
can any diminution of the number be ap-
prehended. Should the Catholics, from
the irritation of temporary disappoint-
ment, fail in that profound respect with
which the legislature ought to be ap-
proached, and especially on a question of
such magnitude as the present;-or, to
put the case still more strongly and in-
probably, should they assume in their
future deportment the most distant sem-
blance of a menacing aspect, few indeed
there are among their protestant adve-

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tates who would not recognize the propriety of suspending all consideration of the subject. Certainly the Catholics could afford no deeper cause of chagrin to their best friends, and no higher gratification to their worst enemies, than such indiscrètion would afford. It is for them to hold the undeviating and unruffled tenor of their way, in the cheering prospect of ultimate success. In relation to this subject, over the minds of many estimable persons hangs a cloud obscuring the divine radiance of truth. But the inist is dispersing, and “the morning steals upon the night, melting the darkness.” Nor on a subject of such paramount importance can the legislative sanction be expected, or ought it to be desired, without a careful, and even it may be said a jealous previous investigation, and every revival of the discussion must be more or less beneficial to the cause. In the joyful anticipation, nevertheless, that the wisdom and beneficence of government will ultimately decide in favour of this measure, we may confidently hope that the root of bitterness will not be suffered to remain; but that the same magnanimity which confers the boon of national freedom will refrain from annexing to it conditions which would impair, beyond all calculation, the efficacy, the grace, and the grandeur of this imperial Conce3S10n. . -**CoTo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR, HE injury and loss occasioned to woollen cloths by worms and caterpillars has long excited attention. There are the caterpillars of six or seven small night-moths, which not only devour the skins of animals, but also make in them small pipes or holes, serving equally as a dwelling and as clothing to the worm. Many chymical agents might be employed against these animals; but the remedy, without great care, might change the cloth, and so prove worse than the evil to be corrected. Recourse may however be at all times had to heat, which is destructive to the caterpillars; and no pains should be omitted to prevent their getting into the warehouses. M. W. Blandford, March 1, 1814. -o-oFor the Monthly Magazine. skETCH of a tou R round NoFT H WALEs, AUGUST 1813. T. may be interesting to many persons I to learn, that all the great features of MonTHLY MAG. No. 25.4.”

this magnificent country, including its mountains, cataracts, Cader Idris, Snowdon, Carmarthen, Bangor, &c. may be seen without hurry or fatigue, and that the most extensive tour usually performed by travellers may be accomplished at no greater expence of time than eight days, counting from Ludlow or Shrewsbury, (the two points from which the traveller usually starts,) or ten days counting from Londoni. * The mail arrives at Ludlow from Lon. don in 24 hours exactly ; and from this place, you provide yourself with an horse or post chaise, no public carriage travelling northward farther than Lud= low. First Day. L. to Bishop's Castle. 20 Montgomery . . . 9 Welsh Pool . . . 7 1.sanfair . . . . . Y. Can Office . . . . 8 In all . 51 post miles. Rain scarcely ceased till we reached Montgomery. * Town wretched—situation of the smas; remains of its castle picturesque—weather clear—beautiful ride to Welsh Foot --i'ine cliff at the extremity of the Brey. thyn hills-Rodney's Pillar, on its sunmit, at 29 extremity of an abrupt moun. tain to Lae right, in a country not yet hilly. Welsh Pool respectable: full of good shops—all the three last places stations for French prisoners—red turrets of Powis Castle seen on the left of the road. Llanfair, the first specimen of a small Welsh town; its bridge and church beautifully situated at the head of a smail valley, Evening drew on—arrived at Can Of. fice, a solitary inn, or rather publichouse, about 8 o'clock—anticipated by Lord , whose man was hustling about the kitchen in his white apron, among

Welsh boors, dogs, and women, and ab

sorhing every thing for his lordship’s use –our accommodation of the worst-- ",ad inn, bad beds and accommodation, but not dear. Second Day. Malwydd . 12 Dinasmouthy . 12

In all . 24 post miles, After leaving Can Office we soon enter a road at the boton of a long winding vale, or street of hills, of which sle whole of

« PreviousContinue »