Were you coadjutor to the late Doctor Troy?-I was. Will you be so good as to explain to the Committee, what is the nature and origin of the authority of the Pope ?—The origin of the authority of the Pope we hold to be from God, who established a head of the church which he wished to appoint on earth; the nature of his authority is, that he is the executive power of that church; his office is to watch over and enforce the observance of the canons; he is, besides, the centre of Catholic unity, the great link that holds together all the different parts of the Catholic body; so that each Catholic throughout the world, finding himself in communion with the head of the church, may know thereby that he is in communion with the whole body. Is his authority confined altogether to a spiritual authority ?— Wholly confined to a spiritual authority, according to the words of our Saviour, "My kingdom is not of this world.” 3 Is that authority under the control of general councils ?—That authority is limited by the councils and canons of the church; he is the executive power of the church, appointed to preside over it, and enforce its canons or laws. Those canons vest in individuals, for instance in bishops, certain rights, which of course, it is the duty of the Pope to protect, and not to violate; his authority is thus limited by those canons. To what extent and in what manner, does a Catholic profess to obey the Pope?-Solely in Spiritual matters, or in such mixed matters as came under his government, such as marriage for instance, which we hold to be a sacrament as well as a civil contract; as it is a sacrament, it is a spiritual thing, and comes under the jurisdiction of the Pope; of course he has authority over that spi-. ritual part of it; but this authority does not affect the civil rights of the individuals contracting. Does this obedience detract from what is due by a Catholic to the state under which he lives?-Not in the least; the powers are wholly distinct. Does it justify an objection that is made to Catholics, that their allegiance is divided?-Their allegiance in civil matters is completely undivided. Is the duty which the Catholic owes to the Pope, and the duty which he owes to the King, really and substantially distinct?Wholly distinct. How far is the claim, that some Popes have set up to Temporal Authority, opposed to Scripture and Tradition ?—As far as it may have been exercised as coming from a right granted to him by God, it appears to me to be contrary to Scripture and tradition; but as far as it may have been exercised in consequence of a right, conferred on him by the different Christian powers, who looked up to him at one time, as the great parent of Christendom, who appointed him as the arbitrator of their concerns, many of whom submitted their kingdoms to him, and laid them at his feet, consenting to receive them back from him as fiefs, the case is different. The power that he exercised under that authority, of course passed away, when those temporal princes, who granted it, chose to withdraw it. His spiritual power does not allow him to dethrone kings, or to absolve their subjects from the allegiance due to them; and any attempt of that kind I would consider contrary to scripture and tradition. Does the Pope now dispose of temporal affairs within the kingdoms of any of the princes of the Continent ?-Not that I am aware of; I am sure he does not. Do the Catholic clergy admit that all the bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience? They are entitled to a certain degree of reverence. If not contrary to our usages, or contrary to the law of God, of course they are entitled to obedience, as coming from a superior. We owe obedience to a parent, we owe obedience to the King, we owe it to the law; but if a parent, the King, or the law, were to order us to do any thing that is wrong, we would deem it a duty to say, as the Apostles did on another occasion, "We ought to obey God rather than men. Are there circumstances under which the Catholic clergy would not obey a bull of the Pope?-Most certainly. What is the true meaning of the following words, in the creed of Pius the Fourth: "I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Bishop, the Successor of Saint Peter ?"-Canonical obedience, in the manner I have just described, within the sphere of his own authority, What do the principles of the Catholic religion teach, in respect to the performance of civil duties?-They teach that the performance of civil duties is a conscientious obligation which the law of God imposes on us. Is the divine law then quite clear, as to the allegiance due by subjects to their prince?-Quite clear. In what books are to be found the most authentic exposition of the Faith of the Catholic church ?-In that very creed that has been mentioned, the creed of Pius the Fourth; in the catechism which was published by the direction of the Council of Trent, called "The Roman Catechism," or "The Catechism of the Council of Trent;" "An Exposition of the Catholic Faith, by the Bishop of Meaux, Bossnet ;" "Verron's Rule of Faith;" "Holden's Analysis of Faith," and several others. The Committee have before them a petition presented to the House of Commons, of the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral church of Peterborough; the petitioners say they consider as utterly unfounded, the allegation of the Romish Church being at present less ambitious and less intolerant, than in former periods of its history; what observations would you be disposed to make upon that paragraph?-I consider it a very unfounded charge, which those who allege it should be bound to prove, or to retract. I do not think, that any facts can be found to substantiate that charge; I conceive that the Catholic church is not intolerant, that the members of it are not marked by any peculiar degree of ambition; on the contrary, I find in them much humility, as much as in any other description of Christians. I consider the charge wholly unsupported by fact. Is not the character of the Church as referred to here, its political character, the character of the religion, of the ministers of the religion, and of the members of the religion, different to what it was some centuries ago?-I do not consider that the Church has by its constitution, any political character; as a church, I conceive that its object is wholly spiritual, the salvation of souls. I cannot conceive that it has any political cha racter, except such as the State chooses to bestow upon it; our Church endeavours to educate its ministers with feelings of humility and a sense of devotion, rather than of ambition; and it teaches them to elevate themselves, by their zeal in promoting the salvation and happiness of men, rather than by any temporal pursuits. In respect of Faith, has any change taken place?-With respect to Faith, there can be no change; the Faith of the Catholic church we consider invariable; its discipline is always changing, according to the local circumstances of the different kingdoms where it is placed. You are disposed to deny, that at present, it is either ambitious or intolerant ?—I wholly deny the charge. The Committee have before them a recent publication, entitled, "Justification by Faith, in a course of Sermons, by the Reverend John William Whittaker;" those Sermons having been preached in the month of January, 1825. The Committee will read a paragraph or two, and ask you for any observations you may think them. In the second Sermon are the followproper to make upon ing observations: page 30. "It has been above observed, that justification by works, implies that we shall be rewarded precisely to the extent in which our good actions exceed our bad ones; from this it may be inferred, that any portion of the former will obliterate an equal quantity of the latter." The Sermon proceeds, p. 31. "If this be true, (and it cannot be denied by one who avows a justification by works alone,) we have fairly established the merits of the Saints and works of supererogation, which our Church has unequivocally and laudably condemned in our fourteenth Article; those are the great bulwarks and strongholds of superstition. If a person once believe in those supererogatory funds of merit, it requires very little additional credulity to think, that the holy men to whom they belong, can transfer them to whom they please, or sell them, or bequeath them as a legacy to their successors. Hence came that Romish treasure-house of merit, accumulated by all the Saints in the calendar, which in the days of ignorance proved so lucrative. Hence the infamous traffic of indulgences and free pardons for sin, which by anticipating guilt, tempted men to commit vice, and under the pretence of religion, sanctioned the blackest crimes. Hence even the invocation of the Saints themselves, and all the blasphemies that attend this open and shameless idolatry. The Sermon proceeds and states, "These dreadful results would not, I am well aware, have followed that doctrine in an enlightened age, because persons of information invariably forsake their principles, when they lead them to contradict their understandings, always preferring inconsistency to absurdity. But they are the natural and luxuriant growth of an ignorant age; and we know by experience that, when they have once taken root, they continue to keep their ground, notwithstanding the present diffusion of knowledge." Does the Catholic church adopt the doctrine of justification by works alone?-I perceive from the passage which has been read, that my answer must be somewhat at large, and I trust that the Committee will make allowance for the wounded feelings under which I find myself compelled to make that answer. I am really grieved that any Christian divine could be found to utter such a charge against so large a portion of his Christian brethren. It would appear from the first passage which has been read, that our idea of justification is, that if our good works overbalance our bad works, or if we perform a great quantity of good works, that will empower us to do a certain portion of bad works, and still leave us a sufficient fund for justification here, and salvation hereafter. I cannot find any language sufficiently strong to mark my abhorrence of that demoralizing doctrine. Not only is it true, in our belief, that no quantity of good works or of virtues that can be practised, can ever give us liberty to commit a sin, but we believe that after a long life passed in the practice of every virtue, social and religious, one sin, one solitary grievous sin against the law of God, would be sufficient to blast the highest sanctity to which human nature, aided by grace, can arrive; and that after all that long life of virtue, this solitary sin would mark out the individual so committing it, to the anger of Almighty God here; and if he were to go impenitent in that state, into his presence, our doctrine is, that he could never see his face in mercy. Thus then our doctrine of justification, is not a kind of balance between our good and bad works; our doctrine utterly denies the lawfulness of any sin under any possible circumstance, and no virtues or series of virtues, that we can ever practise, can, under any circumstances, give us the least title or privi lege or liberty to commit a sin. How then, according to our doc trine, is this sin, once committed, to be blotted out? Upon no other condition, than that of sincere and deep-felt repentance. No other good works that we can perform, will ever remove the stain that has been fixed upon the soul. We may fast, we may pray, we may give alms, we may go to confession and receive absolution; all is nothing towards the effacing of that sin, until the heart is changed by contrition and repentance, and that repentance must be so intense, and our hatred to that sin must be so sincere, that rather than commit the same or another grievous sin in future, our resolution should be to incur in preference a thousand deaths. That is the nature of the repentance which we deem necessary, as a first step towards the effacing of that sin; yet this is only the first step. After this it is required that the criminal should go and humble himself to his fellow man in the tribunal of penance, acknowledge himself as guilty of that crime, in sentiments of humility and compunction; he must promise to repair any injury which that sin may have offered to his neighbour; and he must likewise, as a mark of his detestation for it, receive with docility whatever penances or works of austerity may be enjoined. Thus then we require all that every other Christian denomination requires for the remission of sin, that is, sincere and intense repentance, including a purpose of future amend ment; and we require further the additional humiliation of confession, the receiving of absolution from the proper authority, and an intention to practise such penitential works as may be enjoined, or as the nature of the sin may require. With regard to justification by works, we hold no such doctrine as justification by works alone: we always require faith through divine grace, for Saint Paul says, that without faith it is impossible to please God. Before justification, divine grace must touch the heart, and awaken us to the knowledge of God, as the rewarder of virtue and the punisher of vice. The contemplation of his attributes through faith, leads us gradually to horror for sin, and the love of virtue; to confidence through Christ, in his boundless goodness and mercies, and from confidence to that divine love, which unites us in friendship with God, and without which no one can be justified; all those things, it is true, we consider works. The very act of repentance that I have mentioned, is a work, and the act of confidence and love of God, those are all works, but they are also considered as the effects of faith; all flowing from that faith which, according to Saint Paul, “ worketh by charity." |