Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

There is no Protestant holding or administering any office, or entering any learned profession in these countries, who must not, in order to prove his loyalty, declare in the presence of God his belief that "the pope has not, nor ought not to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." Were such a declaration a mere form of words, it would only be ridiculous; but when the awful name of God is interposed, it becomes terrifying, and is certainly a burthen too heavy for a conscientious man to bear. Were I a Protestant, I would forego the highest dignity in the State rather than make such a declaration. Whether the pope ought or ought not to have spiritual authority within this realm, is a question which depends on that other-whether he be or be not the head of the Catholic Church; for if he be, it is manifest that wherever there are Catholics, he must have jurisdiction over them; and as there are several millions of them within this kingdom, his spiritual authority necessarily extends to them all. But leaving this question, how can a man declare that he has not jurisdiction in this realm,

whereas his having it, and exercising it, is as notorious as the existence of the sun at noon?

In what does power, authority, or jurisdiction consist? In this, simply, that he who possesses them can command some other, and punish him should he disobey. Thus the king, in whom the executive power of the State is lodged, can command his subjects to do whatever the laws prescribe; and his power and jurisdiction over them consists in that right which he has to command, and in the obligation under which they are to obey him. If then there be Catholics within this realm, who recognize in the pope a right to command them to fulfil the laws of God and of the Church, and who profess that they are bound to obey him in these matters, is it not clear, nay manifest, that he has authority and jurisdiction over them? Such authority may not be just, may, or may not, be grounded in divine right, but it is as distinctly recognized in the laws and usages of the Catholic Church, and in the opinions and conduct of Catholics throughout the universe, as the power and authority of our king is ascertained in the laws and

customs of the realm, and in the conduct of his subjects. These laws of our country have force only because they are enacted by persons in whom the entire community recognize a right of legislation; and the laws of the Church and of the Gospel, on which the papal authority is supposed to rest, are equally recognized as just and valid by every Catholic: I can therefore discover no reason why a man can swear that the pope has not jurisdiction within this realm. IT IS NOT a QUESTION OF RIGHT, BUT A MATTER OF FACT.

I think a true Protestant might, if there were a just cause, call God to witness that he does not believe that the pope ought to have jurisdiction in this country; but to declare solemnly, before God, his belief that the pope has not such jurisdiction-a jurisdiction constantly exercised by him-requires a degree of indifference about oaths and declarations, which unhappily is but too general, but which certainly should not be encouraged by those in authority: still less should such suspected intercourse with heaven be rendered necessary to enable a man to enter into office, or step inside the portals of the constitution.

Q

I am of opinion that a distinction between a jurisdiction de jure, or a rightful jurisdiction, and a jurisdiction de facto, does not excuse, still less justify, the above declaration; because such distinction is opposed to the nature of the thing to which it is applied, as well as to all the analogies of our laws and constitution. It is opposed to the nature of the matter to which it is applied, because jurisdiction, or jus dicere, properly signifies the power of administering or executing the law. If this power be exercised and submitted to, the jurisdiction exists; and as there is no doubt but the pope does enforce in this country the laws of God and of the Church, and that the Catholics submit to his doing so, it is a plain matter of fact, that whether he ought or ought not to have, he really and in truth has jurisdiction within it.

Again, the distinction is opposed to the analogies of our laws and constitution, for both the one and the other recognize the authority of an usurper possessed of the supreme power, and make it lawful for the subjects of the realm to swear allegiance pay obedience to him. This was practically

and

exemplified during the wars of the York and Lancaster families, and also in the time of the Protector and Commonwealth; so that, supposing the papal power to be an usurpation, we are bound by the above analogy to admit that it may exist. But then, it is said, if you abolish this declaration, you have no security for the allegiance of the subject, because a divided allegiance is imperfect, and equivalent to no allegiance at all; nay, it may be worse than none-for one allegiance or obligation may be opposed to the other, and a conflict may ensue between the Church and the State.

In the first place, and before replying to this objection, I would plead for the Protestant who disclaims all connexion with the pope, and whilst the Test Act might be left to continue, or some other declaration framed to ascertain the creed of the subject taking office, I would abolish the present declaration, which, viewed impartially, must appear full of difficulties to a sincere Christian, (be he Protestant, or what you please,) and of irreverence to God.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »