a religionist, but as a British senator; and his object would be, not the exaltation or depression of this or that church, but the common welfare, the general prosperity of the United Kingdom. The right reverend Prelate, in company with the Bishop of St. Davids, has made a voyage to the Baltic, in search of an instance of religious disqualification. The Swedes, it seems, would not admit Bernadotte as crown prince till he had conformed to the Lutheran church. Nothing can be less applicable to the present question. What had Bernadotte to do with Sweden? He was not a native; he had no property there; he had no claim to the crown. When they offered him the succession, they were at liberty to add what conditions they pleased, and he was equally at liberty to accept or refuse. By refusing, he would lose nothing of what he previously possessed. But the Catholics are British subjects. They contribute their share to all the burthens of the state. They fight in your army and navy. They were in possession of the same rights and privileges as their Protestant countrymen: and you took these rights and privileges from them, on account of their religious creed. Certainly there is no comparison between the two cases. Instead of Sweden, then let us look at Hungary, in which the Catholics were to the Protestants what the Protestants are to the Catholics in this empire. There, every religious distinction was not long ago abolished; and the consequence of the abolition has been, the augmentation of national strength and national prosperity. * Page 111. REVIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION, BY THE RIGHT HON. LORD KENYON. IN his Letter to Lord Somers, the Bishop of Gloucester recommends to the notice of his readers, 66 the Observations on the Catholic Question, by Lord Kenyon."-" They demonstrate," he tells us, "that preponderance of argument drawn from law, fact, and expediency, neither is on the Catholic side of the question, nor can it be, till law and fact are totally altered."* It may be, that men, anxious to obtain different results, cannot see the same object in the same light this, at least, I am free to affirm, that the inference which I drew from the perusal of Lord Kenyon's publication, was directly the reverse of that drawn by the right reverend Prelate. To To me, it * Protest. Letter, p, 138. ap pears, that the reasoning of the noble lord is built upon premises generally doubtful, and often imaginary: nor will his lordship's candour be offended, if, while I pass by the subjects already noticed in the preceding pages, I point out the instances in which I conceive he has been misled, or misinformed. One striking feature in the publication of the noble lord, is, the boldness with which he plunges into the sea of theological controversy. After the declarations which we have made, and the oaths which we have taken, it had been hoped that no doubt could remain on any liberal mind, of our rejection of the dangerous principles imputed to Catholics by the Protestants of former ages. In the face, however, of these oaths and declarations, Lord Kenyon comes forward to renew the discussion. There is some confusion in the order in which he has marshalled his arguments: but he openly avows his own conviction, and undertakes to prove to the conviction of his readers, that the temporal superiority of the pope, and the non-observance of faith with heretics, always were, and still are, the accredited doctrines of the Roman Catholic church.* Before I reply to his lordship's reasoning, I may be allowed to observe, that the first part of his division is entirely superfluous. What men may have thought in past ages has no reference to the present question. It is not to the creed of the dead, but of the living, that the legislature should turn its attention. If our fathers admitted erroneous principles, let them answer for it: we are not to be punished for the opinions of other men. Should then the noble lord succeed better To the opinion of Lord Kenyon I may be allowed to oppose that of the noble earl, who now presides in his majesty's councils. “I have heard allusions made this night to doctrines, which I do hope no man now believes the Catholics to entertain: nor is there any ground for an opinion, that the question is opposed under any such pretence. The explanations that have been given on this head, so far as I know, are completely satisfactory; and the question, as it now stands, is much more narrowed than it was on any former discussion."-Speech of the Earl of Liverpool on the Debate in 1810, published by Keating, Brown, and Keating, &c. than those who have preceded him in this career, what will be the consequence? He may lead us to believe, that, on these subjects, former Catholics thought differently from those of the present day; but he will never induce us to admit, as true, the doctrines which we have solemnly disavowed. Let it not, however, be conceived, that I decline to meet the noble lord, even on his own ground. For this it will not be necessary to deny, that some popes have advanced unfounded claims to temporal superiority, or that some councils have framed regulations, which seem to exceed the limits of spiritual authority. It is not from the actions of popes, nor from decretals inserted in the body of the canon law, nor from synodical regulations on temporal matters, but from dogmatical decisions alone, that Catholics draw the articles of their church. If temporal pretensions were set up in former ages, they were always opposed, and, in general, successfully, by the Catholics themselves a convincing proof that they formed no part of the Catholic creed. They grew, in fact, out of the state of Europe at the time; they both rose and fell with the prevalence of the feudal system. But, let us proceed to the instances which the noble lord has adduced in proof of his assertion. 1. When the Catholic clergy of the United Kingdom embraced the opportunity afforded them by the legislature, of swearing allegiance to his majesty, they conceived that they had discharged a duty imposed on them by their religion, no less than by the laws, But Lord Kenyon comes forward to instruct their ignorance. He informs them, that to bind themselves to the throne of an earthly monarch, is to debase the sanctity of their character; and that oaths of fidelity to temporal princes were forbidden by the great council of Lateran, no less than six hundred years ago. This prohibition, according to his lordship, was conveyed in the following words: "Some seculars have attempted to usurp too far upon the sacred rights, when they have required ecclesiastics, who have nothing temporal in their character, to take an oath of fidelity. We therefore prohibit, by the authority of a sacred council, all such priests from taking oaths to secular authorities in such manner. This is a most happy specimen of the art of translation. By the magic touch of the pen, a temporal tenure is converted into a spiritual character; a regulation confined to a particular class is extended to the great body of the clergy; and perpetual force is given to what was originally designed as a temporary provision against the anarchy and violence of the times. Is the noble lord ignorant, that, for centuries after the council of Lateran, even down to the present day, the Catholic prelates, in every Catholic kingdom, have been accustomed to swear fealty, and to do homage for their temporalities to the sovereign? Or, is he prepared to maintain, that the words "nihil temporale detinentes ab eis," can mean, "who have nothing temporal in their character?" The fact is, that the regulation in question was in perfect conformity with the feudal law at that period: it went to restrain an abuse, no less prejudicial to the rights of the sovereign, than to the interests of the church; to prevent powerful and factious barons from compelling clergymen to swear fealty to them, though they held no temporal possessions of them, and consequently were not their vassals. I will add a translation of the canon in question, and request the reader to compare it with the version of the noble lord. "Certain laymen attempt to usurp too much on the divine right, when they compel ecclesiastics, holding no temporalities of them, to swear fealty to them. Wherefore, since, according to the apostle, the servant stands or falls to his master, we forbid, by authority of the sacred council, that such clergymen should be compelled to take such oaths to secular persons. 2. "It is added," the noble lord continues, "by Innocent III. that in case of an oath being taken, as a security against conspiracy, they, (the clergy I presume) were not so bound by that oath, but that they * L'ab. Conc. Tom. 11. par. 1. p. 191. |