BISHOP SUTER AND DR MORAN.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2636, 29 July 1871, Page 2

BISHOP SUTER AND DR MORAN.

To the Editor. Sir Everyone who is intimately acquainted with the Bishop of Nelson knows that he is a Christian gentleman and a scholar, and must have read the rude attack made upon him in Tuesday’s Times by the Romish Bishop, with no little indignation. “ When the Bishop of Nelson learns how to translate a sentence of Latin correctly,” writes Dr. Moran, “ and acquires even a moderate knowledge of genuine history, he will, I am persuaded, entertain ideas very different from the delusions of which he is now the victim,” &c. “ This," to use a little of Dr. Moran’s cant, “is certainly very polite and mannerly.” I shall not attempt to defend the Bishop of Nelson’s statement touching “the batch o£ canons.” The Bishop is quite competent to care for himself in that matter. I wish to throw a little light upon the Roman Catholic Bishop’s oath, the translation of which —by Bishop Suter, and a few weeks ago by “ Gregory XVI.” in the Times— Dr Moran has dared to challenge A pretty little tale hangs by this persecuting oath, which will show how far in his study of Latin Dr. Moran advanced beyond the junior class, or how faithful a student he has been of The Moral Theology of Liguori. In the month of November, 1850, the Rev. Dr. Gumming delivered two lectures inHanover Square Room, London, on Cardinal IViseman, copies of which now lie before me. In the first lecture the Doctor says : “ When he,” i.e., Dr Wiseman, “ received the pallium he repeated a solemn oath, which will be found in the Pontificate Roman um. One clause of the oath is as follows :— * Hcereticos schismaticos et rebelles Dom no Nostro vel successor Unit prasdictis Pro Posse Persegar E ling ugnabo'! That is, he solemnly swore on his most solemn oath—‘All heretics [that is, Protestants], schismatics [that is, members of the Greek Church, that separated, as they say, from Rome], and rebels against our Ltrd or foresaid successors, I will persecute and attack to the utmost of my power’—the correct translation, I believe, of Pro Posse." The Doctor in his second lecture says—“ Anxious to know whether I had translated the words aright, I opened an admirable sermon preached by a first-rate man upon this subject, Dr Wordsworth. He quotes the words of the oath as follows ‘ I, Nicholas [applying it to Archbishop Wiseman], elect of the church of Westminster, to the utmost of my power wi I persecute and ivajc war with heretics &c., &c. ’ I have been charged with gi viug too strong a translation; but Canon Wordsworth, than whom I do not know a more able scholar on this subject, translates it more strongly than I do. The only other translation 1 know of is that of the Rev, Mr Burgess, Rector of Chelsea, who said that it ought to be translated, in order to enable an Englishman to understand it, ‘ 1 will persecute and pitch nto ’ ! ” In a foot-note Ur Gumming says—“ In the Roman Missals I have found the verb persegor employed at least six times, and in every instance implying persecution by violence.” Did Cardinal Wiseman question the correctness of the translation of the Bishop’s oath as given by Dr Gumming, and whi hj is substantially the same as that now given by the Bishop of Nelson? Not guile disingenuous enough for that! “But a new discovery is now come,” says Dr Gumming, “I received today a letter dated St Cvorge’s Cathedral, Southwark, with a cross prefixed to it, and signed Francis Scarlc, Secretary to Cardinal Wiseman.” In this letter the Dr.’s attention is called to a letter which he (Francis Searle) “took” himself “ to The Times printing office.” It runs thus •“ lo the Editor of The Times. St George’s, Southwark, Nov. 15th. Sir,—Dr Gumming in his letter of your paper of to day, gives an extract from the oath taken by Bishops and Archbishops, copied from the Ponlificale, printed at Antwerp in I i'i7, and states —' 1 presume that Cardinal ‘ Wiseman on receiving the pallium, took that oath. ’ To prevent further misunderstanding, I have the Cardinal’s permission to state to you, that by a rescript of Pope Pius VII., dated April 12th, 1818, the clause quoted by the Rev. Dr., and so subject to misunderstanding, is omitted by the Bishops and Archbishops, who are subject to the British Crown. In the copy of the Pontifica l; kept at the Episcopal geskjcncc in Golden Square, the copy PERHAPS generally ” (the italics are Dr.’s) “ used in the consecration of Bishops in England—the sentence is cancelled. (Does Dr Moran know that ? if so, why did he not say so rather than quibble about the meaning of perseguar.) “ Dr Gumming,” Mr Searle goes on to say, “is at liberty to inspect this if he will arrange with me for that purpose.” Not a hint was given in the way of condemning the Dr.’s rendering of the oath—only the Bishops and Archbishops subject to the British Crown, and therefore, not having the power to persecute and pilch into heretics, schismatics, &c., in these realms are freed from the obligation to take the abominable oath “so subject to misunderstanding !” That is all. So I suppose we may all sleep comfortably enough in Dunedin, notwithstanding that wc have a Romish Bishop in our midst with all the dispositiou to persecute and pitch into all rebels against his authority (as is' made manifest by I}is first Igcture) seeing he is a “subject of the British crown !” In a letter to the Editor of the T'mes Dr. Gumming writes “ 1 accepted the invitation ” (as contained in Mr Searle’s letter), “and this day, in company with Sir J. Heron Maxwell and Admiral Vernon Hatcourt. 1 inspected the Cardinal’s Pontifical submitted to me at the Episcopal residence,

before! me'Ufound in the Bishop’s oath the vfery words- I quoted and in bold type, but with a line of black ink drawn over the passage by a pen apparently very recently used, leaving the words disclaimed by the Cardinal, sufficiently legible, but without any initials or other verification of any sort. On the fly-leaf at the beginning of the book I found the same oath in MS. without the persecuting clause, and without initials or other verifications, and apparently very recently written. But the startling fact remains. On referring to the oath to be taken by an archbishop (Dr Wiseman being recently made one), on receiving the pallium as given at page S3 (I’aris cd., 1664) of the Pontifical thus sub nitted to me by older of the Cardinal, I found the persecuting clause—“ IRvreticos, schismalicos," &c, [Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to the same, our Lord (the Pope) I will per■seclife and make, to r with to the utmost of ray power] printed in a bold type, without any alteration, emendation, or correction whatever, constituting in the Archbishop of Westminster’s own part and parcel-, .of the bath, on receiving the / pallium, as I have already stated he must take. The discovery heeds no comment, beyond my expression of surprise that the Cardinal should have had the temerity to invite me to inspect hj s Pontificate Romanum." Do you think Dr Moran will be prepared to submit his Pontifical to the scrutiny say of Professor Sale ? Dr Wiseman did not deny the correctness of Dr Cumining’s translation of the Bishop’s oath, but declared that “bishops and archbishops, subjects qf the British crown,” by a politic move of Pius YU , have been freed from the obligation to adopt the persecuting clause ! Dr Moran says nothing about the rescript of Pope Pius VII., but quibbles about the meaning of perseguar. giving it the silly rendering, “I luili follow jwrsever ingly,” and shrewdly neglecting to give to impugnabo any translation at all. Le Jesuitisms est. um epde, dont la pohjni est d Rome, el la pointe partout. Omega. Dunedin, July 28.