PAPAL AGGRESSION.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 594, 12 April 1851, Page 4

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

[From the Times, November 26.] Some time before the appearance of Cardinal Wiseman’s appeal, in the dark days when we had nothing to guide us but bulls and pastorals, we ventured to suggest our conjecture of the grounds which had induced the Pope to venture on a step apparently so fraught with danger and difficulty. Those grounds we suggested to be the desire to draw more tightly the reins of sacerdotal discipline which float but loosely on the backs of the Roman Catholic laity, and to .avail himself of the present schism amongst the clergy of the established church, to widen the difference, to strengthen the hands of the Romanising par-

ty, and to drive to extremities those who are i anxious to find any excuse tor remaining ... church which has long ceased « either their belief or sympathy. The most cursory reference to the grounds on wta t Dr. Wiseman informs us that the establisl - ment of a regular hierarchy in England was solicited from the Roman See, as he says by the English Catholics, but as it would rathe. . appear by the Vicars Apostolic, will show that both the objects we anticipated were steadily kept in view. We have to thank the i candour of Dr. Wiseman for showing us that other objects of a still more questionable nature were contemplated, and it does not require much penetration to see that the Cardinal has not felt himself obliged to lay before our heretical eyes ail the results which in his daydream of power and ambition he fondly anticipated. It is necessary, says Dr. Wiseman in substance, that the canon law should be introduced into England. In order that it should be introduced, it is necessary for the Roman Catholic bishops to take their titles from the names of the principal towns. With every respect for the high authority which promulgates them, we take leave to deny each and all of these propositions. It must seem strange that the Roman Catholics, who have lived three hundred years under persecution, and twenty under toleration, without the canon law, should now for the first time awake to the necessity of its introduction. But without insisting on this, what is there in the canon law, considered as a system of morals and jurisprudence, which should make its introduction in the eyes of the people of England a sufficient excuse for the recent aggressions ? What is this canon law, that we should so desire its introduction that in order to obtain it we ought to be content to wave for its sake our duty to the Church and our duty to the Crown. The canon law is, we hesitate not to say, a complete system of persecution, falsehood, priestcraft, and tyranny. The canon law inculcates that all baptised persons are within the catholic and universal church, and that if they fall into heresy they may lawfully be punished with any requisite degree of severity. According to it, persecution is a duty, the performance of which nothing but weakness can excuse. The canou law teaches the lawfulness of equivocation and dissimulation and the nullity of ; oaths, when contrary to the interests of the | church. The canon law inculcates the dis- I pensing power of the Popes, and the absolute subordination to them of all powers ecclesiastical and temporal. Almost every dogma which has been made a reproach to the church of Rome, as inconsistent with the maintenance of civil government and social confidence, is to be found in this odious code. There is no doubt that the promulgation by the Pope of this code, framed by ecclesiastics for the purpose of perpetuating ecclesiastical domination over mankind, would materially increase the power of the Roman Catholic clergy over the laity. Instead of occupying a position somewhat similar to that of other dissenting teachers, instead of having to rely for their influence over their flocks on the fallible grounds of the weight of individual character or the force of individual intelligence, they will henceforth be able to appeal to an infallible law which settles by anticipation every question in their favour. The fixed rules by which Dr. Wiseman tells us the Roman Catholic clergy earnestly desire to be guarded from arbitrary decisions are rules which give to those arbitrary decisions the force of law; the uncertainty of position of the clergy which he deplores will be replaced under the canon law by a position perfectly certain and ascertained—a position which enslaves the laity to the clergy and the inferior priesthood to the superior. The introduction of this rigid discipline into the Roman Catholic body may be beneficial to the aspiring clergy, but cannot fail to be injurious to the laity, and through them to the rest of her Majesty’s subjects. If the Roman Catholics of England are in every respect advantageously distinguished from those of countries where their religion is dominant, if with an amiable inconsistency they have learnt the practice of mutual toleration and the language of civil and religious liberty, we owe it mainly to this—that they have only heard of the canon law in the periodical declamations of intemperate zealots, and that having hitherto lived free from its influence and obligation they know not what spirit they are of, and mistake the spirit of Protestantism, which they adopt in practice, for that of Catholicism, which they adopt in theory. It is not for the welfare of these kingdoms that this anomaly should be put an end to ; and if we cannot persuade our Roman Catholic brethren to become consistent by conforming their principles to their practice, we trust they may never be compelled to assimilate their prac- z tree to their principles. We are well content to see the Roman Catholic laity an imperfectly drilled militia, apd are nowise reconciled to the title of the Archbishop of Westminster because it is conferred in,-order to

introduce, under the name of the <j ano Z" those articles of war which would ch 1 them into a regular army.

But admitting the canon law to be «<t- j to be desired by all true Englishmen, w .p| that a regular hierarchy is necessary introduction. Whatever we may B ay a ?- lt '| despotic Governments, they have undofil this advantage, that the progress of legi s b' | is intercepted by no technical obstacle, jpl be the will of the Pope to bless his »pi t j. 'I subjects in this country with the ineitim.?! boon of the canon law, it is easy fo r u? e i apply it to the state of his church -which*■ | cumstances have forced upon it. | to the full that dispensing power which VI 11. exercised so freely and so fatally I behalf, the Sovereign Pontiff can motor. l laws of the universal church in any j which he pleases, so that that shall be ) av I one part of this one indivisible and homo & I neous body which is not law in anotUl Thus, for instance, the persecuting ...-'I which is taken by all other bishops andard I bishops of the church appears to bp&peuJl with in the case of the Roman Cathiilk n lt I lates of England and Ireland. But, til we dp not admit that a regular hierarchy, O is one embracing all the necessary grailati Qs) | of rank, and administering in the most coe.| plete manner the rights and ceremonies olfo| church, could not be established without t«.| ritorial titles. To assert this appears to extremely puerile. Doubtless such has the practice of the Roman Catholic chutcJ. because it has chiefly known but two ststrhl that of a proscribed and persecuted faith, J under the Pagan Emperors of Rome; ordß a dominant one, as in all countries of Euraytl before the Reformation. In the first aJ the Church being at open war with the Siu| bad no occasion to make concessions wiki! could not conciliate ; in the second, beingfof Church of the State, it was fairly entitled J territorial jurisdiction. Ours is a midfol case, in which the church of Rome is hU rated without being persecuted on the o»l hand or established on the other. Hadfo object been merely internal government, would be easy to show that internal govern-! ment could have been formed without terriu-l rial titles, as by the appointment of bishop! without restraint, or by increasing the m- ; ber of vicars apostolic. The Pope could, 1 he would, use his absolute power to concilia!! i as well as attack ; but, though when the invasion of the rights and feelings of mankind ii| in question the arrogance of the Roam Pontiff has never known any bounds or betncontrolled by any law but his sovereign will, when the modification of bis boundless pittensions, so as to avoid offence and promou charity and good understanding, is required he is, if we are to believe bis apologists, i feeble and limited monarch, hemmed in lj; rule, circumscribed by precedent, and thenfore unable in any respect to modernise « adapt to civilised ideas and institnlions lb language or the practice of his predecessor! It is this gross and glaring profession of weakness where there is po®s>| of liberality where there is intolerance, tb necessarily shakes our confidence in wj good faith of the reasons which are safl! have led to the recent aggression. Nolffl are those reasons insufficient in themself! but it is impossible to pay so poor a compi ment to the intelligence of Cardinal man as to suppose that they did inadequate to him. Not even the p°wei holding a provincial synod, or of re*diw| the country into parishes, was enough’ itself to compensate for the desperate Judging from the interpretation which tj been sought to be forced upon the KroMcft tion Act, we cannot doubt that had tbep’q sent aggression been allowed to pass buked a totally new principle would established. The Emancipation Act g flrt i the Roman Catholic laity,. as i.ndid freedom for their speculative belief; b® I prohibition against carrying those theojH into practice clearly implied in the oath, 1 held from them that freedom in theitc°‘' e 1 capacity. They might believe what J would, without weakening or disturbwlg Protestant religion ; they eould noteWß that belief in the form of a local and , hierarchy without doing both. The b® s pation Act permitted ritual allegiance to a foreign Powe? t sought to found on that permission the , to organise a conspiracy against our I tution. If that right be conceded, wh»> | o can we refuse ? J