The Papal Aggression.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 523, 19 April 1851, Page 3

The Papal Aggression.

Apart from the interest inherent in the subject itself, it would not lie possible for us to ]ay before our readers anything approaching to a just — though it may be a miniature — view of the contents of the English journals, or to perform our duty as chroniclers of current history> without continuing to devote, from time to time, a considerable portion of our space to extracts respecting the mighty movement called into action by the attempt of the Pope to exercise territorial dominion in England, and to establish in that Protestant country a hierarchy with pretensions hitherto unheard of, and unthought of — except in the deep and farseeing policy of Rome. We do not feel at liberty to dismiss, in a mere paragraph or two of summary, a theme in comparison with which every other topic of contemporaneous interest is, at home, regarded as almost insignificant. But our difficulty is, to select, amongst the multitude of articles on the subject which crowd the pages of the journals, tho&e which, — without actually swallowing up oui space, — may afford some adequate idea of the earnestness and universality of the agitation, and may fairly represent the positions occupied by the respective parties engaged in the contention. "We shall to-day, however, bring some of the principal of them into view, reserving others for future opportunities. Although not much disposed to yield to Cardinal Wiseman the personal or ecclesiastical

pre-eminence to which he lays claim, we shall concede the precedence on this occasion to his " Appeal to the Reason and Good Feeling of the English People," referred to in our last. The great length of this Manifesto precludes the possibility of our inserting it entire, or even in the abridged form in which it occupies nearly five of the spacious columns of the S'/dney Herald. But we shall endeavour to give such an outline as will convey to our readers a view of its general argument. In an introduction, the Cardinal relates the " history of the establishment of the Catholic hierarchy in England." The want of a full and explicit code of government had been painfully felt both by the bishops and the clergy, their church having " so much expanded and consolidated itself since the Emancipation Act, and its parts had so matuied their mutual relations " In order to the satisfactory and final accomplishment of this, a hierarchy was necessary ; for The Canon Law is inapplicoble under Vicars Apostolic ; and besidet, many points would have to be s^nodically adjusted, and, without a metropolitHn and suffragans, a jjiovincial synod was out of the question. Under these circumstances, application was made by the Vicars Apostolic to the Holy See, which agreed to grant the desired boon, in 1 847, although some difficulties in details, and the "Roman Revolution, prevented its conclusion until now. Dr. Wiseihn contends that there was no concealment, no intention to take the nation by surprise, and no aggressive act on the part of that " best, and, here, most calumniated of men," the Pope, but simply " a condescension to his Vicais, their clergy, and the people." After these explanations, the Cardinal treats the question under six separate headings. I. " The Royal Supremacy, and Bishops named by the Crown " Down to 1829, Catholics were excluded from Parliament and civil offices, but the Emancipation Act relieved them from the obligation to acknowledge the Royal Supremacy in spiritual matters. That supremacy is equally denied by the Scotch Kiik and the Dissenters as by them. Lord Lyndiiurst's d'ctum is quoted, that " It is no crime for a Roman Catholic to maintain and defend the supremacy of the Pope in spiritual matters." 11. " What was the extent of religious toleration granted to Catholics *? Have they a right to posses* Bishops or a Hierarchy 1" Here again Loid Lyndhurst is quoted . he once observed, " If the Uw allows the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be allowed to be carried out perfectly and properly." A Hierarchy of local bishops is indispensable to the attainment of this. 111. " How could Catholics obtain their Hierarchy V If they were ever to haVe it at all, it could be only through the Pope. The appointment of bishops, or the constitution of a Hierarchy, is au essential part of his spiritual supremacy. IV • " Does the appointment of a Catholic Hieiarchy trench on the prerogative of the Crown?" This question, though delicate, must be met. Not only have the addresses and replies of bishops and clergy assumed that the Royal prerogative has been, assailed, but an address from the Bar has strongly asserted it. Dr. Wiseman is of a different opinion. Lord John Russell had stated in Parliament as his interpretation of the Protestant oath, that, in the opinion of the person taking it, the Pope has not, or ought not to have, any jurisdiction which can be enforced by law. Now, no one imagines that the appointment of the Hierarchy can be thus enforced. "Itis an act altogether ignored by the law, — an act of spiritual jurisdiction only to be enforced on the consciences of those who acknowledge the Papal supremacy by their conviction and their faith." The taking the title of Bishops constitutes no illegality, provided they are not the titles of the sees of Anglican bishops :—: — Then I ask those more learned in the law than my--pelt, can an act of a subject of Her Most Gracious Majeaty which by law he is perlectly competent to do, be an infringement of her Royal prerogative? If not, then I tiuat we may conclude that by this new creation of Catholic bishops that prerogative has not been violated. It will he said that no jimitation of jurisdiction is made in the papal document, no restriction of its exercise to Catholics ; and hence Lord John llussell and others conclude that there is in this brief "a pretension to suutemacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway." Eveiy official document has its proper forms ; and had those who blame the tenor of this taken any pains to examine those of Papal document! they would of found nothing new or un usual in this. Whether the Pope appoints a penon vicar apostolic or bishop in ordinary, iv either case he assigns him a territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction, ami ' gives him no personal limitations. This is the practice of every chuich which believes in iti own truth and in its deity of conversion. Again, the Queen, as head of the English Church, has sent bishops to countries where her supremacy is not acknowledged, and no allegiance to her Crown is due. If this could be lawfully done, " surely Catholics had good right to suppose that, with the full toleration granted them, and the permitted exercise of Papal .supremacy m their behalf, no less would be permitted to them without censure or rebuke." Positive declarations and public assurances from members of the Government led them to the same conclusion. Lord John Russell himself, in the debate on the Roman Catholic ! Relief Bill in 1846, had declared that, " as to preventing persons assuming particular (episco-

pal) titles, nothing could be more absurd and puerile than to keep up such a distinction." It would appear therefor thn f whatever hesitation Lord John Russell Vm(l about leiuahos* other clauses in the Emancipation Act, his mind was rruJe up about the restriction of Catholics from assuming the veiy title of sees held by Anglican bishops, Had he oblained his wishes in 1816", the law would now have po-milted us to call oursHves hishops of Loinlun or Chester, and archbishop of C)<nter>>ury. I quote- th°se passages, not for the purpose of charging Lord John Russ u ll «irh inconsistency, but irerely to justily oureelves, and show how little reason we could have for believing that our acting stiictly within the law lespec'ing episcopal titles would have been de&ciihed as it had; for if it was puerile in 1846 to continue to prevent Catholics even taking the prohibited titles, and no pood reason exiiird for the continuance of e\en that restriction, is it manly in 1850 to denounce «s 'insolent and insidious" the assumption of titles not different from those accorded to us by the authority which Lord John acknowledges can alone bestow e\ i copacy upon us ? I have already alluded to Lord Minto's being shown the brief for the Hierarchy printed about two years auo. The circumstonce may have escaped his meuio> y , or he may not at the time have attended to it, hay ng more important matters in his mind ; hut as to the fact that his attention was called to it, and he made no reply, I can have no doubt. Y. " The Title of Westminster " Cavdinal Wiseman is sorry that this title has given gieat offence. "It was little less than necessity which led to its adoption." According to the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church a bishop's title must be from a town or city ; a " territorial" title is never given. Thus in Van Diemen's Land, while the Anglican bishop takes his tide of Tasmania from the territory, the Catholic deives his of Hobatt Town from the town. In England it was natural that the metropolitan should have his see at the capital. London was a title inhibited by law ; Westminster suggested itself as a city unoccupied by any Anglican see, and giving a honourable and well known metropolitan title. " I can sincerely s,iy that I had no part whatever in the selection." VI. " Has the mode of establishing the Hierarchy been ' insolent and insidious V " These words are taken from Lord John Russell's " too, memorable .letter,',.' on which Cardinal Wislman animadverts in very caustic language, declaring that the pait of it in which his lordship applied the tetm " mummeries of supeistition" to the Roman Catholic religion, " produces in the Catholic hcait a feeling too sickly and too deadening for indignation; a dismal despair at finding that, where we have honoured and suppoited and followed r for years, we may be spumed and cast off the first moment that popularity demands us as its price or bigotry as its victim." To show how little Cardinal Wiseman could have been prepared for such a declaration from Lord John Russet l, he gives the following extract from a letter which he had "occasion to write to his lordship on some business." Vienna, November 3. My "Lord.— " ♦ * * * I cannot but most deeply regret the erroneous and even distorted view which the English papers have presented of what the Holy See has done in regard to the spiritual government of the Catholics of England ; but I take the liberty of stating that the measure now promulgated was not only prepared but printed three years apo, and a copy of it was shown to Lord Mmto by~ihe Pope on occation of an audience given to his Lordship by his Holiness. I have ho right to intrude upon your Lordship further in this matter beyond j offering to give any explnnations that your Lordship may desire, in full confidence that it will be in my power to remove particularly the offensive interpretation put upon the late act of the Holy See, that it was suggested by political views or by any hostile fee'.ingi. And with ifgard to myself, I bejj to. add that I am investad with a putely ecclesiastical dignity; that I have no secular « t temporal delegation whatever— that my duties will be, what they have ever hern, to pro* mote the morality o£ thoie committed to my charge, especially, the masses of our poor, and keep up those feelings of good will and friendly intercommunication between Catholics and their fellow countrymen, which I flatter myself I have heen the means of somewhat improving. lam confident that time will soon show, what a temporary excitement may conceal, that social and public advantages mu t result from taking the Catholics of England out of their it regular and necessarily temporary atate of government in which they have been placed, and extending to them that ordinary and more definite form which is normal to their church and which ' has already been so beneficially bestowed upon almost every colony of the Briln>h empire. I beg to apologise for intruding at such length upon your Lordship'i a tention ; hut I have been encouraged to do so by the uniform kindness and courtesy which J have always met with from every member of her Majesty's Government with whom I have had occasion to treat, and from your Lordship in particular, and by a sincere desire that such fr.endly communication should not be interrupted. l'havc the honour to be, my Lord, Your Lordship's obedient seivant, N. Card. WISH-MAN. The Rfght Hon. the Lord John Kussell, First Lord of the Tieaiury, &c. He proceeds to set forth the reasons which led him to believe that no good objection could exist to the step. Not only in -Ireland had the Catholic Hierarchy been recognized and even Royally honoured, but the same form of ecclesiastical government had been extended to the greater part of our colonies. Auitralia was the first which obtained these advantages by the erectiou of the archeipi^copal see ol Sydney, with suffragans, at Maisland, Hobart Town, Adelaide, Perch, Melbourne, and Port ' Victoria. This was done openly and was known publicly, and no remomtiance was ever made. Those prelates in every document take their titles, ami they are acknowledged and sular E ies, as archliishop and bishops respectively, and this not by one, but by successive Government!-. Our Nortli American possebslons ne\t received the same boon. Kingston, Toronto, Uytown, Halifax, have been erected into dioceses by the Holy Sue. Those titles are acknowledged by the local governments In an act ''enacted by the Queen's excellent Majesly» by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative

Aisembly of the province of Canada," (12th Victoria, chap. 13G ) the Riflit Rev. J. E. Guinness is called " Roman Catholic HMiop of Bytown," and is incorporated by the title of " the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Bytown." In an act passed March 21, 1849 (12th Victoria, chap. 31), the Right Rev, J>. Walsh is styled " Roman Catholic Bishop of the dioceie of Halifax, Nova Scon* ;" and through the act is called " the 11. C. Bi hop of the said diocese." Lately again after mature consideration, the Holy See has fumed n new ecclesiustical province in the West Indies, by which several vicars-apostolic have been Bi&hops in ordinary. The Cardinal concludes with some sarcastic comments on the Chapter of Westminster; a pungent censure of the part taken by the Anglican clergy in the Anti- Papal movement; a tribute of gratitude to the people " who would not hunt down, when bidden, their unoffending fellow citizens to the hollow cry of 'No Popery/ and on the pretence of a fabled aggression ;" and a few sentences of counsel to " the docile and obedient children of the Catholic faith," in which he assures them, " Inquiry is awakened, the lespective merits of churches will be tried by fair tests, and not by worldly considerations ; and truth, for which we contend, will calmly triumph." Cardinal Wisfman's Manifesto, in its pamphlet form, (ills thhty-two lar c octavo pages ; but Aye trust we have given such a digest of its matter, as will bring its genetal contents fairly under the view of our readers. We need not say the publication has been copiously commented on by most of the journalists, but we cannot find room to-day for even specimens of their strictures. We may just note, however, that the London correspondent of the Tablet, who is understood to be a Romish priest, states, "I know that it has produced a very great effect on all rational Protestants. There is a deep feeling among them that it settles the question." No doubt the writer would class as irrational the large numbers of Protestants who would coincide with the Britannia in pronouncing it a " mere repetition of all the exhausted pleas of Rome ; declamatory without eloquence, elaborate without vigour, and heavy without argument." As respects the portion of the " Appeal" which relates to the organization of Romish bishopncs in the colonies, the Rev. Ernest Hawkins has published the following statement :—: — To the Editor of the Times. Str, — Tn the ''Manifesto of Dr. Wiseman," as pnblished in the Timet of this day, amonz the grounds for supposing tha> n > reasonable objection could be mads to the organization of a Romish hierarchy in England, he gives a prominent place to its unopposed encroach* ments in the colonies. These encroachments commenced in Australia by the pretended erection of an archic'piscopal see of Sydney, with suffragans at llobart Town, Adelaide, &c, under the authority of I the Pope. "This," says Dr. Wiseman, "was done : openly and was kuown publicly, and no remonstrance was ever made." As far as the civil Government is concerned, I fear that this statement is true; but what I am concerned to show is, that the measuie in question was met by an immediate and distinct remonstrance \ on the part of the Church of England in the colony. 1. On the notification .of the assumption by Dr. Poldmg of the title of Archbishop of Sydney, the cdnoniially constituted Bishop of Australia did publicly, and explicitly in behalf of himself, his successors, and tlu cleigy and laity of the church and diocese, and also on behalf of the Archbishop of Can* terbvjry, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, protest against the usurpations and aggressions of the Pope and his representative. This protest was publicly read in the church of St. James'?, Sydney, on the 25th March, 1843, and was afterwards placed on record in the re&iatry of the diocese " as tx perpetual testimony against the attempted invasion of the See of Rome." But, not content with this, the Bishop of Anstralia addrt'Sied a pastoral letter to his clergy on the subject, and directed that the protest should be read in every church and chapel of the diocese. Surely the church, could not have remonstrated more plainly and emphatically than she did. It may be as well to add Her Majesty's Government never recognißed the claim of the intrusive prelate to the title of Archbishop of Sydney, bat specially directed that he should be addressed as the " Most Rev. Archbishop Poldiog" (see Loid Giey's " Cnculai," dated November 20, 1847, in, the Colonial Church Chronicle, vol. ii. page 150) ; and so, while all England will oppose the claim of Dr. Wiseman to be called A-chbishop of Weitmmster, few will c^re to dispute his claim to the title of archbishop. 2. Acting upon the example set him by his Metropolitan, and guided by the same principles ofcanouica law and Catholic order, ethe Bishop of Adelaide solemly protested ag.iitist the assumption, by a nominee of 'he Fope, of the style and title of " Catholic Bishop of Adelaide;" and this piotest, in winch the cathedral clergy concurred, w.is readr c ad in the cathedral church on Sunday, July Bth, 1849 3. bo, too, the Bishop of Tasmania publicly denied and repudiated the right of ihe so-called Bishop of Hobart Town to assume the title of the capital city of his own diocese, 4. The Queen of England was pleased, in the year 1839, to eieccthe province of Upper Canada into a diocese under the title of the Bishopric of Toronto ; and some yeais afterward* the Pope conferred the title' of Bishop of Toronto on » schismatical prelate of the Romish communion. These instances will suffice to show, that for years past in British North Ami nca, as well as in Austialia, the Chun-h ol England has iaued her voice" against Papal ufcurpitions. But 1 adduce one more instance to prove, contrary to JLJi . Wiseman's dictum, that not only do eccleiiaities of the Romish communion viuliite a principle of the Catholic church by invading the right* of bishops and metropolitans canomcally appointed, but also assume " territorial titles." During the present year the Romi&h bishop Fleming died. His title was " Bishop of Uirpasia and Vicar-Apostohc of Newfoundland." A Jew months after his death a pastoral letter f.om hib former coadjutor, Dr. Mullock, was inserted iv the colonial papers, commencing with these words :—" I, John Thomas, by Di»ine Gniceand the favour ot the Holy See, Bishop of Newfoundland.'* Against this insolent assumption the lawful bishop has addresied her Majesty's. Government. I am, sir, your obedient servant, EuNEbr Hawkins. n, Pal! : uiall, November 20.