صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

humanity-most humbly praying that the House will take their case into consideration, and grant them such relief as they shall deem proper for extending to them the enjoyment, in common with their fellow-subjects, of the blessings of the Constitution.”—This is a very fallacious, and yet a very plausible, mode of stating their case.

I am a Churchman; but can assent to Archdeacon Paley's words, that “ differences of opinion, when accompanied with mutual CHARITY, are for the most part innocent, and for some purposes useful: they promote inquiry, discussion, and knowledge; they help to keep up an attention to religious subjects, and a concern about them, “which might be apt to die away in the calm and silence of universal agreement. I do not know (adds he) that it is in any degree true, that the influence of religion is the greatest where there are the fewest Dissenters.”—Paley's Evidences, Vol. II. chap. vii. p. 389, 4th Edition, 1794.

Let us hear a Dissenter speak on this topic, as he cannot be interested or prejudiced in favour of our Church: I copy the following Extract from a sensible Letter by a “ Protestant Dissenter," in the Bristol Journal of March 27, 1819; signed “ CANDIDUS."

“I have said that the Catholic labours under disabilities, because his religious sentiments militate against the principles of the Constitution, and I think the truth of the as. sertion is capable of the clearest demonstration. The Church established by law, is a part of the Constitution; and, though the Catholics profess to have no intention of overturning it, yet I must remind them that their profession is flatly contradicted by their religious principles. With regard to other religious systems, the uniform language of all the standard documents of the Catholic Church is--anathema. Its hierarchy, its government, its discipline, its creeds, are all founded on the same common principle of exclusive intolerance. From the Vatican of Rome to the

P

LETTER XIX.

SIR,

THOUGH I entertain no fear of a direct and immediate attempt being made by our present Rulers, either in Church or State, to unite once more the unreformed See of Rome with the reformed ecclesiastical establishment of England, yet I feel it right to allude here to this subject. The letters of Archbishop Wake to M. Dupin, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, may have given an idea that such a re-union (or rather a junction of the Gallican with the Anglican Church), was practicable ; and yet, Sir, the result of that correspondence proved, that “ Rocks as high, and more impenetrable than the Alps or the Andes, are cast betwixt us : " thus, indeed, thought the Roman Catholic author of " The State and Behaviour of English Catholics,” whose candour is always conspicuous, but not so extravagant as to insult or betray his own Mother Church.

In the 4th Appendix to any modern edition of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, you will find this whole correspondence. The translator, in conclusion, remarks; that, “ from this narrative, confirmed by authentic papers, it will appear with the utmost evidence,

“ 1st, That Archbishop Wake was not the first mover in this correspondence, nor the person who formed the project of union between the English and Gallican churches.

2dly, That he never made any concessions, nor offered to give up, for the sake of peace, any one point of the Established doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, in order to promote this union.

“ 3dly, That any desires of union with the CHURCH OF Rome, expressed in the Archbishop's Letters, proceeded from the hopes that he at first entertained of a considerable

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

reformation in that Church, and from an expectation that its most absurd doctrines would fall to the ground, if they could be once deprived of their great support—the Papal authority, the destruction of which authority was the very basis of this correspondence.”

Sych misconduct was left to be perpetrated by “ a beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England, who is in the enjoyment of a very respectable Rectory in Essex, and a not less respectable Vicarage in London ; who is a Fellow of Sion College, a Member of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, the Treasurer and Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Society of Dr. Bray’s Associates (of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is the President), the Chaplain at once of a Royal Hospital and of a Royal Duke, &c. &c."; and to whom we owe the obligation of now publishing an EARNEST RECOMMENDATION" of such Union to “ His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, the Most Reverend the Archbishops, the Right Reverend the Bishops, the Reverend the Clergy, and all Lay Persons who are able and willing dispassionately to consider the important subject.”

As I am one of those " Lay Persons ” who (if not able) may be thought willing to consider this subject, I will very briefly state my own views,—which arise from an impression left upon my mind when I some time

ago

read the work alluded to. In the first place, I cannot dissemble my astonishment at this proposal, by a Clergyman of the Church of England; who so little feels the duty he ought to have practised as a faithful son of that Establishment, to which he professes allegiance, and by which he gains a maintenance! I am *told, that this beneficed Clergyman has also written a work in explanation and defence of the Thirty-nine Articles: and I am surprised that, in doing so, he did not perceive the irreconcilable opposition (both in discipline

$ I learn this from the Eclectic Review for April, 1819, p. 301.

[ocr errors]

méanest cabin in Ireland, one Church is the watch-word of Catholicity: Catholics cannot consistently acknowledge any other; nor are they at liberty to sit with indifference in any assembly, where the interests of another Church are promoted.

“ If, on being admitted into Parliament, they were to 'act according to their principles, their first effort should be to abolish the Church of England, and to establish the Church of Rome. I do not mean to blame them for this ; but I blame them for denying it. Let them come forward as Catholics; but let them come as Catholics who wish to be consistent; and let them candidly declare, that their principles are such as to require the overthrow of the present Church Establishment, and the setting up of their own ; and then let the Legislature judge of the true character of their claims. “I may

be told that the Catholics disavow the intention which I have laid to their charge: I know they disavow it; and I know, also, that they disavow the principle of intolerant religious exclusion, which I have ascribed to their system; but how is the disavowal made? It is made by individuals who have no authority to make it! The character which I have given to Catholicity, has been drawn for it in the Bulls of Popes, and in the Canons and Decrees of Councils; but it has been disavowed by individuals only, or by bodies of Laity, not competent to make such disavowal, or by unauthorized meetings of Clergymen, equally incompetent.

“ The claims of ancient Catholicity have been desterously lowered or raised, according to the spirit and circumstances of the times; but nothing has been changed: all has been reserved for future exigencies. Every one will admit that the obnoxious and intolerant principle to which I have adverted, is to be found in the Bulls of Popes, and in the Canons and Decrees of Councils; and yet I am certain

that none will affirm, that authority equally competent has been employed to disavow it. To say that individuals do so, or even bodies of individuals, is saying nothing to the purpose. If

any man, or body of men, the subjects of this realm, should propose entering into a commercial contract with me, which an act of the British Parliament had pronounced to be illegal ; would not the public consider me a fooi were I to embark my whole property in such a contract, merely because the individuals concerned had said that they did not acknowledge the obligation referred to? Should I not act more consistently with my own interests, were I to tell them, that, however promising the results of the contract might be considered in itself, yet, as their disavowal of the law that made it illegal would be of no avail in a day of trial, I could not enter on the contract until that law should be repealed by the same authority by which it was at first enacted?

- Common sense would in this instance approve my conduct. I would act the same part in the question of Catholic Emancipation. Let the Church of Rome, by Bulls of Popes, and Decrees of Councils, remove from her standards her anathemas against those Churches which differ from her : for, until this be done, those CIVIL Constitutions of which such Churches form a part, are bound to exclude Catholics from so FREE a participation in their privileges as might give them an opportunity of doing those Churches an injury."

Another Dissenter, of popularity and respectable name (Mr. John Hyatt), has just published a warning Sermon, which contains these passages :

“ To an unprejudiced mind, there does not appear the least room for doubt respecting what is the paramount ob. ject for which the Catholics are struggling. Their pretext, till of late, has been religious liberty; but, now it is evident that civil power is the object to which they aspire. Already,

« السابقةمتابعة »