The course pursued, we may also observe, is designedly intended, not to teach submission to the constituted authorities of the land, but fierce and unmixed ultra-montanism; or, in other words, a doctrine which attributes a universal, spiritual, and temporal omnipotence to the Pope of Rome-fidelity and allegiance to him, and to him only. Now to foster and encourage the very opposite of all this was evidently the object and design of the British Government in permitting the establishing of Maynooth, and in subsequently maintaining it. No doubt the Romish Prelates promised faithfully that such should be the case-that the various suggestions of the Government should be complied with. It should be noted, however, that the British Minister had reckoned on realizing an actual impossibility-it could not be that a Roman Catholic priest could be true to the principles of his church and at the same time a loyal man. While it might be possible, that priests educated in France, Infidels or Atheists, as many of them were, might be loyal, it is evident a sincere Roman Catholic Priest or Prelate, living in a Protestant state, could not be a loyal man. He has sworn fealty to the Pope, and to defend the rights of the church against all aggressors-rebels against the Pope, heretics,* &c. How, then, can such an individual take the oath of allegiance to a British Sovereign, who according to his creed, he must look upon as a heretic, * "Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to the same our Lord, or his successors aforesaid, to the utmost of my power I will persecute and attack," are the words of the oath.-See oaths of Priests and Prelates in Pontificale Romanum. and out of the pale of salvation? Is it not evident, therefore, that a conscientious Roman Catholic priest cannot be a loyal man, or true to the Protestant Government under which he lives ?* Referring to the evidence given on this point, it appears that any oath of allegiance taken by a priest must be broken when the good of the church requires it, and that a belief in the deposing power of the Pope is still an article of faith. Surely then, this being the case, it is self-evident that a priest can only be a loyal man so long as the good of the church does not require him to be disloyal. The testimony of Professor Anglade is as follows, "Are the Commissioners to understand the proposition, about which you are now examined, as meaning simply this; that if a person, implicitly bound to obey another, takes an oath which that other prohibits him from fulfilling, this discharges him from the oath, although the person prohibiting him may commit a sin in so prohibiting him? I THINK SO."† This is tolerably plain speaking. Dr. M'Hale in his evidence is not less explicit "The Commissioners find the following proposition laid down in a part of Bailly's book, now used in Maynooth, in the second volume of Moral Theology, page 140:-'Proposito. Existit in Ecclesia potestas dispensandi in Votis et Juramentis. Prob. 1, ex Scripturis Matt. 18. *Dr, Doyle in his evidence before the House of Lords, gave it as his opinion, that if a rebellion raged from Cape Clear to Carrickfergus, not a priest would put forth his hand to prevent it. †This same Dr. Doyle, in his letters signed J. K. L. p. 22, speaking of prosecutions of Roman Catholics for " offences against the peace of our Lord the King," says: "The witnesses as often labour to conceal, as to manifest the truth: one class of them anxions to defeat the law, the other only intent on procuring conviction; both regardless of the obligation of an oath, and perfectly indifferent about contributing to the ends of justice " We learn from the testimony of Mr. Inglis, vol. i. p. 284, that— "As to find out the truth by the mere evidence of witnesses, it is generally impossible. To save a relation from punishment, or to punish one who has injured a relation, an Irish witness will swear any thing." Quæcunque solveritis super terram, erunt soluta et in cœlis. Hæc verba, cum generalia sunt, non solum, significant potestatem solvendi vincula peccatorum, sed etiam votorum et juramentorum.' You observe, that it is there laid down in the broadest and most unqualified manner, that there is in the church a power of loosing, not merely from the bonds of sins, but also from the bonds of oaths, and it is there asserted, that that can be proved from the 18th chapter of St. Matthew, in which it is stated, whatsoever things ye shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven ;' do you attach that meaning to the word 'solveritis,' that is attributed to it in this passage? Yes, I think it may be susceptible of the meaning of dispensing from oaths....... Without further investigating whether the doctrine is to be deduced from that particular text, we beg to know whether you believe the doctrine, that is, whether you believe, as is there laid down, that there is in the church a power of dispensing from oaths! Surely, in the sense the proposition is laid down and explained by the author. Let us now see what that sense is in which this proposition is explained by the author, and which Dr. M'Hale here admits to be correct — 6 "We find it laid down in page 145, of that class-book, that the following are just causes of dispensation in those causes, viz. first, the honour of God; secondly, the utility of the church; thirdly, the common good of the republic; and fourthly, the common good of society.' (Mark how the good of the church takes precedence of the common good of the state and society.) Who is to be the judge of what the utility of the church may require? The superiors of the church. Does it not appear there to be laid down as a universal proposition, and without any quali fication, that the utility of the church was a just cause for dispensing from oaths? It is laid down as a proposition, {that THE UTILITY OF THE CHURCH IS A CAUSE." The accuracy of this testimony is fully supported by the evidence of Mr. Dixon (a converted priest). He was asked "Was that your opinion when you were in charge of a parish? At the period of time when I was admitted to priest's orders, and at the period of my professional duty, it was. Your opinion was, that though you had solemnly sworn allegiance to his Majesty, and though you had sworn that it was no article of your faith that the pope was infalliblethough you solemnly declared before God, that you did not think that you could be absolved from that oath by the authority of any pope, or any bishop, or any authority of the see of Rome, although they should declare that it was null and void from the beginning-notwithstanding all that, you held the reverse, of what you so expressed and swore to? I held that the pope could absolve me from the obligations of the oath of allegiance. Although you swore to the contrary? Yes; such was the impressions I brought with me in consequence of my education, that the pope could absolve me from all this, if it had any tendency to promote the interests of the church."* Again, as to the material sword being subject to the spiritual, and as to the deposing power of the Pope, we have the following testimony Dr. Higgins in his examination, speaking of the material sword, observed, that "it should be subject to the spiritual sword, that is, it never should defend any cause opposed to the law of God, of which law the church and the Pope as the head of that church, has the right of judging." And finally he stated, that "he could not tell how long it is since popes have changed their mode of interfering with temporal claims."t Dr. Crotty, in reference to the deposing power, remarked, "I beg leave to observe, that the Popes who have claimed the right of interfering in temporals, do not rest their claim on the decrees of these Councils, but on certain passages of Scripture, to which Roman Catholic divines do not attach the meaning given them by the ultramontanists." In opposition to this opinion, Dr. Doyle and Dr. Slevin gave it as their decision that "the right of interference is only founded on some obselete claim or other in temporals" by the Pope" to this realm of England.” Such is the evidence, taken before the Commissioners of Irish Education Inquiry, to which Mr. Blake, himself a Roman Catholic, and one of the Commissioners who signed that report, refers, as containing an impartial account of the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth. The class books referred to contain many pass * See Irish Education Report, VIII. Appendix p.p. 283, 284. † In 1809, in excommunicating Bonaparte, Pius VII. declared that his persecutors are subject to his authority by the law of God; and that "any acts against the temporal rights of the church subjects them to the severity of the sword which the Church has handed down." ages quite as important on other points; such as the following "The church retains her jurisdiction over all apostates, heretics, and schismatics, though they do not now belong to her body, as the leader of an army has a right to punish the deserter, although his name be not upon the roll."* "Heretics are bound by the ecclesiastical law, because by baptism they are made the subjects of the church; nor are they more delivered from the laws than subjects who rebel against their princes."+ During the examination of Dr. M'Hale, he was forced to admit, that he was the author of a violent and inflammatory pamphlet, which contained several seditious, if not treasonable paragraphs, and which the publisher, Mr. Coyne, proved had been presented to the president, and distributed amongst the students. This pamphlet, written at this early date, by one of the Professors of Maynooth, gives ample testimony of the instruction the students received under his particular teaching. The pamphlet contained one of those bitter and virulent attacks on the Established Church, for which his subsequent letters and speeches have been so notorious; and yet Dr. M'Hale told the Commissioners he had not the slightest apprehension of expulsion on account of his violation of the statutes of Maynooth, by the writing and circulating of such a work. Surely comment is unnecessary on the effect which such instruction must have had on the minds of the students. * Delahogue, Tractatus de Ecclesia, p. 404. |