« ZurückWeiter »
“ Such is the oath of fidelity to the Pope of Rome which is taken by the Romish Bishops of Ireland, with the exceptions already noted. The motive to the principal alteration, which consists in the omission of the words Hereticos, Schismaticos, &c. is stated in the following representation * to Pope Pius VI.” " The Archbi
shop's Metropolitans of the Kingdom of Ire“ land represented to his Holiness, that from “ the ignorance or malice of some persons, cer“ tain expressions prescribed in the Roman “ Ritualt to be taken by Bishops at their Con
This addition, with the single omission and alteration alluded to in the preceding notes, make the sum total of the differences between the form now used in Ireland, and the form wbich is printed in the “ Pontificale Romanum."
* No. XVI. of Sir J. C. Hippisley's Appendix to his Speech of 1810. The precise date of the representation does not appear ; but as the Pope's answer is dated June 9, 1791, the representation itself must have been early in that year. About that time the Catholic question, as it is called, was a subject of much investigation in Ireland; and the most obnoxious passage in the Episcopal oath having excited attention, it was deemed prudent to apply to the Pope on that subject.
+ Here is a very strange mistake for a representation made by Romish Metropolitans. It is not the Roman Ritual, but the Roman Pontifical, which contains the Episcopal Oath. The Rituale Romanum contains the Offices which the Parochial Clergy perform in their respective Parishes, as Parish Priests.
“ secration, and by Archbishops on receiving “ the Pall, have been misrepresented; which “ has added new perplexities to those which
they daily experience in a kingdom where “ the Catholic Faith is not the Religion of the « State. Wherefore they humbly requested, if " it should appear expedient to his Holiness, “ that he would vouchsafe to apply a remedy
by some act of his Apostolical Vigilance."
The remedy itself has been already stated, but the reason why the titular Archbishop of Ireland thought a remedy necessary, is not unworthy of notice. The “ perplexities” in which they were involved on this occasion, were owing, as they themselves declare, to the circumstance that “ the Catholic Faith is not the Religion of the State." Does not this imply that if the Catholic Faith were the Religion of the State, these perplexities would not exist ? Must we not thence infer, that if the Romish Religion had been the established Religion of Ireland in 1791, it would not have been deemed necessary to apply for an
But the Pontificale Romanum prescribes the form for the Ordination of the Clergy, the Consecration of the Bishops, Abbots, &c.
omission of the sentence; Hæreticos, Schismaticos, et Rebellis eidem Domino nostro, vel successoribus prædictis pro posse persequar et impugnabo." Nor would it then have been necessary to apply the mild construction which has lately been put upon those words. The “
The “ pro posse persequar,” would have a very different meaning if the Romish Religion were the Established Religion of Ireland, from that which it has when the Romish Religion lies under Restraint. Nor must we forget that if the obnoxious sentence is now omitted, it
may be at any time restored at the discretion of the Romish Bishops themselves. It is an original part of that oath, and if the Pope
graciously pleased to grant” its omission on account of the perplexities of the Romish Bishops in Ireland; yet those perplexities being once removed, there is nothing to prevent the restoration of the sentence.
After this succinct but true exposition of some few of the prevailing errors of the Church of Rome, and of the fallacious grounds upon which Mr. Butler has founded his arguments; we would suggest to our Protestant Brethren the absolute necessity of using all lawful means
to preserve our country from Papal Tyranny; our laws, our estates, our liberties from Papal Invasion; our lives from Papal Persecution; and our Souls from Papal Superstition and Idolatry. We would remind them, in the words of Bishop Smalridge,* that “it would add great strength to our cause, if we exerted ourselves in defence of our Established Church with that hearty zeal, that unwearied industry, and above all with that firm union among ourselves, which we cannot but observe, approve, and be afraid of in our enemies. All the jarring parties amongst the Romanists cordially agree in promoting the interests of their Church. Franciscans and Dominicans, Jansenists and Jesuits, Seculars and Regulars lay aside their mutual quarrels, and join their forces against the Heretic as a common Adversary. And though, notwithstanding their so much boasted concord, there is after all neither unanimity in opinion, nor uniformity of Rites in that Church, it must be confessed that there is amongst them an union of Interests, which reconciles all differences, and makes them one entire and well compacted body. Thus,
* Bishop Smalridge's Sermons, folio, p. 391. Oxf. 1724.
when the Jews were employed in rebuilding the Holy City, we read, that their adversaries, however divided among themselves, were all united in obstructing that work. It came to
It came to pass, saith the Sacred Historian,* that when Sanballat and Tobiah, and the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites heard that the walls of Jerusalem were made up, and the breaches began to be stopped; then they were very wroth, and conspired all of them together, to come and fight against Jerusalem, and to hinder it.”
Against this united strength of our enemies we should be much better able to bear up, if we were as firmly combined in the defence of our Religion, as they are in assaulting it: if our scattered forces were brought to a closer order for securing that Church which is most rigorously attacked by the Papists, as being by them known to be the strongest Bulwark against Popery. Wise was the observation, and wholesome the advice which | Nehemiah gave to the Nobles, to the Rulers, and to the rest of the People, upon a like occasion : the work is great
* Nehemiah iv.
+ Chap. iv. 19, 20.