Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

obtained peace for his house, unless his son Absolom had been put to death in the war which he had excited against his father. So the Catholic Church, if she collects together some, by the destruction of others, heals the grief of her maternal heart by the liberation of so many souls." Here is" the sweetness of evangelical love," never separated from "the salutary severity, which is peculiar to the Christian institution."

Now here is Reiffenstuel on canon law. "The conclusion stands also in a case, in which any person is bound by an obligation to him who is lapsed into heresy; so the doctors afore cited with the gloss commonly received. For the doctors commonly infer, that the Pope can, for the sake of religion, absolve the laity from an oath of fidelity, and from any other obligation, though confirmed by an oath which they held beforehand to the delinquent; both as well, because in every promise' the cause of religion' is considered excepted; as because, in such an obligation and oath it is tacitly understood, if he continues such a person with whom I may lawfully communicate, or if he does not render himself justly unworthy to receive it according to law."" It is asserted, in another passage, "that servants and vassals are, ipso jure (that is, from the law itself), liberated from service and fidelity to a heretic, as also man-servants and maid-servants from obedience to the same." This is from the canon law of Reiffenstuel, published at Rome by the present Pope, the year after he came to the popedom, and returned as a standard in the College of Maynooth. Now we come to another (the last I shall trouble you with on this subject)-the Scriptures.

There are two classes of books returned in this parliamentary document. There is one list of books, which the students are all obliged to purchase at their own expense, and which they must have when they come into the College. There is another list of works recommended by the professors of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, for their perusal, or referred to by them in the course of their lectures. Now I shall take one of each class. This is a commentary on the Scriptures, which the Roman Catholic students of Maynooth are obliged to purchase at their own expense: the commentary of Menochius, which was printed for the College of Maynooth. Here is a beautiful vignette of this celebrated College in the front, and the words, "The Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. Founded 1795." Now, on this favourite text of theirs, upon which you have heard the opinion of Augustine, namely, the tares

and the wheat, I shall read their commentary in this class-book, which every student must have.

"Lest haply you injure the good, when you endeavour to remove the bad from the midst of them, besides that those that are bad 'sometimes become good;" and when they do, you know the church rejoices to receive them into her bosom. If you would only conform to the Church of Rome, she would embrace you with the most tender maternal affection. "Christ does not forbid heretics to be taken away and put to death, by this: on which subject you must consult Maldonatus on this point."

Here you perceive the class-book which the student must buy, refers him for instruction here to the more perfect standard of his College. Now here is the commentary of Maldonatus, on Matt. xiii. 29:-"There are some who abuse this place, by trying to prove that heretics are not to be punished or put to death, which they who do, seem to be anxious about themselves. First, indeed, it does not refer only to heretics, but to men who are children of the devil, as opposed to the children of the kingdom, among whom heretics are the chief species, but not the only kind. Therefore, they who deny that heretics are to be put to death, ought much rather to deny that thieves, much rather that murderers, ought to be put to death; for heretics are so much the more pernicious than thieves and murderers, as it is a greater crime to steal and slay the souls of men than their bodies. Also, all the ancient authors, as Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, interpret this of heretics, not because they are the only tares, but because they are more especially so. Besides, though heretics only are understood, nevertheless, the Father of the family does not rashly prohibit such to be rooted out, but only lest the wheat be rooted out with them; for then, according to his opinion and will, they are not to be rooted out, when there is any danger lest the wheat be plucked out with them, as the divine Augustine and the divine Thomas, that greatest of all theologians, has observed: under which "masters and guides the trustees of Maynooth are pledged to direct the consciences and understandings of their students. "When, therefore, there is no danger that the wheat be rooted out along with them, but there is rather danger lest, if they be not plucked up, they may injure the wheat, what need is there to wait for the harvest? They are immediately to be plucked up, they are immediately to be burned."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In a time of peace, when England is at

rest, it would be a most dangerous thing to attempt the eradication of the tares in Ireland; but if the sound of foreign cannon be heard across the channel, and England's hands are filled at home, and those foreign foes often invited, are received upon the shore, then, when there is no danger that the wheat be rooted out with the tares, "immediately they are to be rooted out, immediately they are to be burned." "Besides, why is there danger that the wheat will be rooted up with the tares? or why does the Father of the family order to wait for the harvest, unless that before the harvest they cannot be distinguished or separated from the wheat? When therefore they can be separated, undoubtedly they are to be separated-undoubtedly they are to be burned."

I shall now just make one or two remarks upon the parliamentary debate on the second of the present month. The hon. member for Waterford, Mr. Wyse, says, “With respect to the charge that had been frequently made, that a book entitled Dens's Theology was read at Maynooth, he begged to say that that work was not read at Maynooth, and never had been read there, and that, moreover, many of the doctrines which were supposed to be inculcated in that college, particularly the doctrine of the power of the Pope over temporal princes, his power of deposition, and the power of breaking oaths with heretics, were not taught, but were most studiously inculcated by the statutes and every one of the professors of theology not to be taught in that college." With respect to Dens being used in the College of Maynooth, I never said it was, for the simple reason, that I never could prove it. But, indeed, I know not what is the use of Dens being read in the College of Maynooth, when Dens's master, Thomas Aquinas, is the standard appointed for the college. With respect to these doctrines being "studiously inculcated, not to be taught" in Maynooth, I really do not know, but in all our colleges, our professors and our tutors "studiously inculcate," that the books put into our hands should be learned and taught; but Maynooth, it seems, on the testimony of Mr. Wyse, presents a most marvellous exception in the history of all literature and education, because in these the professors "studiously inculcate" that the doctrines in their books are not to be learned! What a pity that the time of these amiable professors should be so lost in endeavouring to preserve the pupils from the information of their books! Would it not be well, for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, before he carries out his intention of endowing this College, to

send to the Pope, and to request that he would favour the College of Maynooth with a set of books, which might correspond with the amiability of the professors?

But does Mr. Wyse imagine that such a statement can be imposed upon the common sense of any man out of the House of Commons? If this be the case, what was the reason why it is proved to demonstration, that as soon as the priests leave that College, from the year 1808, Dens's Theology was adopted by the whole body of Romish bishops assembled in Synod, as the best "guide and master" of all the priests in their dioceses?

What is the reason why those bishops, since the year 1810, have circulated secretly under their patronage, through the length and breadth of Ireland, a fuller commentary on the Scriptures, distributed by proper persons to subscribers in every town, breathing out threatenings and slaughter more full of sedition and murder than than of Maldonatus?

What is the reason why, in the year 1831, it is demonstrated by the secret statutes of Dr. Murray, though he said to Lord Melbourne, this month ten years-"I did not make Dens a conference book; in fact we have no such book; "-what is the reason why his own secret statutes, detected the next year, demonstrate that he not only made it a conference book, but that he made it a conference book that he might train his priests in it; that by that book, as their standard, they might direct the consciences of all the Roman Catholics committed to their charge?

What is the reason why, in 1831, those bishops dared to publish a code of canon laws, some of which they had denied on their oaths before the Commissioners of Education, and before the Committees of Parliament in 1825 and 1826, to have any existence in Ireland; but which they admitted, if published, would overturn the government, and "drench our streets and fields in blood?" Why did they dare to publish this code of canon law in 1831, immediately after they had got emancipation? Why is it, that at this moment, in the midst of peace, we are suffering, in Ireland, the apprehensions of war? What is the reason why the Sovereign of this country is threatened by her subjects in Ireland, that the moment there is war, they will break out and dismember her empire?

With respect to principles contained in books, I confess, I know not how the House of Commons, or any human being can form a judgment of the doctrines taught in the

College, unless from the books of that College, except indeed it be that the Right Hon. Baronet adopts the principle of Mr. Wyse, that the superiors "studiously inculcate that the doctrines of the books are not to be learned." But what are we to do? are we to take the doctrines of the professors? The Right Hon. Baronet has supplied us with this test, too; so let us try Maynooth on evidence as cited by Sir Robert Peel.

He refers us to the evidence of two professors; we shall go to the first. I refer to the passage cited by the Right Hon. Baronet, page 180, of the evidence in this report, from which he quotes the professor's answer as to Paley.

I am perfectly sure, that the Right Hon. Baronet did not arm himself with this quotation from the parliamentary evidence, as an apology for Maynooth, to mislead the house or the public mind upon the subject; I am sure there is no one that hears me, who would not indignantly acquit him of such a charge if it were made against him. But I deeply regret, that both for his own sake and that of truth, he did not a little more closely study the evidence from which he made this extract; so as to furnish his own mind with sound information on such a momentous subject. For if he had read the evidence of this same man in the very page preceding his own quotation, he would have seen the vital difference between the doctrines of Popery, and those of any sound Christian moralist on the subject of oaths. This very professor is there asked, whether he had read a treatise of Bishop Sanderson on the Obligation of Oaths? (these treatises were in my opinion brought in to throw a mystified confusion over the whole matter, and confound the doctrines of Paley and Sanderson with theirs,) and he answers, "I have seen it to-day, and I read some of it; I find it differs almost in nothing from ours in its divisions and subdivisions, only just that it does not admit the dispensing power of the Pope in respect of Catholics!" Mark! "ONLY JUST!" That is, "only just that it does not admit the dispensing power of the Pope!" Why, herein lies the whole vital difference between Popery and Protestantism on the question. The Protestant believes that he is responsible to God, and only to God, for the obligation of his oath; while Popery teaches, that the Pope or a bishop can assume God's prerogative over the conscience, and nullify any promise or oath which a man can make, whenever he pleases. And this is the professor, whose evidence is quoted, no doubt by mistake, by Sir Robert

Peel, to prove that the principles on oaths in Maynooth are the same as those held by our professors of moral theology!

But now we shall refer to the authorities of Maynooth, to examine this subject a little more closely.

I open Reiffenstuel, the standard of Maynooth, printed, as I have said, under the authority of the present Pope. I find here, in a chapter on the obligation of promissory oaths :

"Question.-What conditions may be considered to be tacitly implied in a promissory oath?

،، We answer, First, in every promissory oath, however absolutely made, certain tacit conditions are understood....Among conditions of this sort which are tacitly, and justly indeed, in a promissory oath, the first is, if I should be able,' because no one is bound to an impossibility; and this proceeds from any impossibility, whether it be impossible de jure, (namely, that could not be done honestly and on sound principles,) or whether it be impossible de facto, (namely, that could not be done physically, or at least without the greatest difficulty.)....To this may be referred this condition, If it shall please God, if I can do it lawfully; because an oath is not the bond of iniquity; for those things which are unlawful or displease the Lord God, are justly considered impossible.

"The second condition is, saving the right and authority of my superior."

These authorities are quoted on this subject: Reiffenstuel, Jus. C. Lib. II.; Decret. fol. 24.

Now what does the Church of Rome call impossible? what does she mean by unlawful? who is this superior, whose right over the conscience is to be reserved as a tacit condition in the mind of him who takes the oath?

We turn to the next chapter, on the obligation of a promissory oath, and there we find, in the eighty-second section, the sixteenth canon of the third Lateran Council, quoted, "those are not to be called oaths but rather perjuries, which are taken contrary to Ecclesiastical utility."

Again, we find, in the eighty-fourth section, that an oath of keeping "the statutes, ordinances, or customs of places, when in them are contained any things unlawful, impossible, injurious, or obstructive of ecclesiastical liberty, is unlawful, and by no means to be taken."

But the Right Hon. Baronet goes on:"As another proof of the danger of trusting to such indications, he might state, that,

Prime Minister of England cites from the treasury bench in the house of Commons, as a model of the sanctity of an oath, and of the loyalty of a subject, and of the value of the College of Maynooth? Who is this man, whose authority he cites, for denying the doctrine of the third Lateran Council, that subjects could be absolved from their oath of fidelity to their Sovereign? He is a man, whose whole existence gives a long, loud, living lie to every word of this statement. The meeting will hardly believe-the nation will hardly believe that the man whose authority is thus cited by Sir Robert Peel,

during the same inquiry, the following question was put to another professor at Maynooth:-'In the third Council of Lateran is it not understood that amongst the punishments decreed against the Albigenses, this was determined,-Illorum subditi et vassalli relaxatos se noverint a debito fidelitatis dominii et totius obsequii donec in tanta iniquitate permanserint? This appeared to imply, that, in certain cases, a spiritual authority might release the subjects of a sovereign from their allegiance; but what was the reply of the professor of dogmatic theology? He said, 'If it be supposed that a Council or Pope, or any authority in support of this bill in the house of Comwhatever, assumed the right of absolving subjects from their allegiance to their Sovereign, I would disregard their decision, and consider the subject by no means freed from the obligations of fidelity. Not only would I despise and disregard such a decree, but, if a subject of the Sovereign in question, I would consider it my religious duty to openly resist it, and advise such of the people as might be committed to my care, to remain unshaken in their allegiance.' Now let them place that practical statement against the doctrine of the Council of Lateran; and because certain doctrines were contained in some books used at the College of Maynooth, let them not suppose that the instruction given at that institution was inconsistent with their duty to God, to their neighbour, and to their Sovereign."

My first reply to this statement shall be this. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Those whom God marks as apostates from the faith, "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats," are branded also with this mark upon their brow speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron." But I answer, secondly, without any reference whatsoever to the man who gave that answer on his oath, give me that answer from any man who is "a professor at Maynooth," and he is a public perjurer. He is bound by an oath to his Church to receive indubitably that Council; if he is true in his oath to his Church, he is perjured in that oath to the commissioners; if he is true in his oath to the commissioners, he is perjured in his oath to his Church.

166

say

But who is the man, whose authority the

mons, is the Popish Bishop of ArdaghDr. Higgins! I have the report in my hand; I turn to the passage quoted; and here is the name-Dr. WILLIAM HIGGINS! This is the man who in 1830 signed, with the other bishops, a pastoral to all the people of Ireland, declaring that having obtained the object of their desire in Catholic emancipation, they withdrew from all further political agitation, and hoped it never would be renewed. This is the man who, with the other bishops, signed a declaration published in the Directory of 1835, and in all the papers in Ireland, expressly forbidding that the clergy should in future use their chapels for any political meeting, or any political agitation. And this is the man, who placed himself at the head of the repeal movement in Ireland, who at once organized the whole body of his clergy, seventy-four in number, and sent in their adhesion to it—the man, who at the time of the monster meetings, when the government threatened to put them down, threatened the government, that if they dared to put down the meetings in the fields, the chapels throughout the country should be used as the rallying places for the people.-And this is the man, whose subscription, and that of all his priests, to the repeal fund, amounting to £74, is announced in the Freeman's Journal of the 3rd of May-the very same date with the Times newspaper, containing the Prime Minister's citation of his authority in the House to justify his bill. But this subscription is accompanied with a letter to Mr. O'Connell in which he says, "Much has been said about the gratitude we owe for the grant to Maynooth, but I confess that I for one, (and I am joined in that sentiment by the priests and people of this diocese,) feel no gratitude whatever: in the first place, our own energies and determination wrung that paltry sum from a bigoted and anti-Irish cabinet, nor shall we ever thank the rich glutton when he disdainfully flings us the crumbs from his table; secondly, the grant is so

miserable in amount, that it can be looked upon in no other light than as a sheer mockery and an insult."

The Right Hon. Baronet has been pleased to inform us, that "he has read with great attention this report of 1827." I am perfectly satisfied, that he never opened the book to take that passage to quote in the House of Commons, because the name "William Higgins" stands on the margin, and it is wholly impossible that Sir Robert Peel could have taken such an authority. Some sycophantic flatterer, some Papal traitor, some Jesuitical knave, has abused his confidence; has furnished him with this information to arm him for the objection against the grant, but to mock him for making it; and he has unsuspectingly taken it, and committed himself by quoting it in the House of Commons. But what now, let me ask, will the Right Hon. Baronet do under the high sanction which he has adopted?

Will the Right Hon. Baronet convene his Cabinet Council and discuss with them the propriety of proposing the third reading of this bill on Monday, and introducing it into the house under the sanction of Dr. Higgins? Will the Right Hon. Bart. propose the third reading of his bill on Monday, as supported by the authority of Dr. Higgins? How will he meet the smooth, bland smile of Mr. Wyse, how the sardonic grin of Mr. Sheil, when he moves it under the sanction of their venerable bishop, Dr. Higgins-an admirable scholar, and an admirable illustration of the system taught in Maynooth?

Will the Right Hon. Bart. say to his majority" Gentlemen, I hope I shall be supported by all your voices in the third reading, reinforced as we are by the excellent and right reverend Dr. Higgins?" How will that majority ever face their constituents again? To what city, to what town, to what village, to what honest Englishman can one of them apply, and say—" My good friend, I hope I shall have the honour of your support at the next election?" "Why," John Bull will answer, 'no, that you sha'nt; you have given my vote to Maynooth and Dr. Higgins." Will not the whole body of the majority be known by the name of " Messrs. Higgins and Company?" They are mistaken, lamentably

Published under

THE PROTESTANT

At F. BAISLER'S

124, Oxford-street;

misinformed, most awfully ignorant of the system that is taught; but they are gentlemen, many of them with a high feeling of honour. And if the Prime Minister can indeed get them to commit themselves, and commit their character, in thus supporting the third reading, will he venture to send the bill up to the House of Lords under the protection of Dr. Higgins?

Which of the Lords will he venture to ask to move it? I am afraid, my Lord, he would have a very bad chance with your Lordship.

Will he call upon the prelates of England men who are bound by their solemn ordination vows, and bound still more by the solemn vows of consecration, under which they hold their high and holy office, to "use all faithful diligence to banish and drive away" these iniquitous and abominable doctrines?-Will he call upon them to violate their vows and oaths, by identifying their principles with, or surrendering them to, this dignified prelate of the papacy, Dr. Higgins?

If the Prime Minister would dare to do so, oh! for the mighty, the indignant thunderbolt of a Chatham's voice in the Commons, to rend in pieces the hollow-hearted, cowardly, spiritless legislation of these base, degenerate days! Oh! for the electric fire of his eloquence to thrill round the House of Lords, to evoke the genius of the Constitution to come to the rescue of his country, to call the ancestors of the nobles of England to frown from the tapestried walls, on such an insult upon the honour and dignity of this illustrious branch of the legislature; to invoke the judges to interpose the purity of their ermine, and the bishops the sanctity of their lawn, against such a monstrous violation and desecration of the laws, the liberties, and the religion of their country!

[ocr errors]

O Lord!

But vain is the help of man. "raise up thy power, and come among us, and with great might succour us.' O God! raise up men of truth, of principle, of virtue, of religion, of honour; men who are not. ashamed, or afraid, to profess themselves the servants of their God, and then, and not till then, they will not be afraid to be the faithful servants of their Sovereign and their country!"

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »