The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-20 00:00:00

established, to complain and say that by that conces-
sion was only meant a perpetual state of regency
such as existed until the king was chosen? Now,
if Catholics at their emavcipation were allowed to build
up their Church according to its avowedly proper plan,
which is episcopal, what right can any one have to say,
` Yes, but it was meant that you should only build it of
temporary and imperfect materials, such as we have
tolerated in you during your oppression and exclusion.'
And then, government of a church by vicars apostolic
is to its normal state just what a regency is to a mo-
narchy.
" Secondly, the law did put on a restriction. There is
an axiom in law, Exclusio unius est admissio alterius;
that is, if you specifically exclude or deny the use of one
particular thing, you thereby admit the lawful use of
that which is not denied. To take the imtance above
given; if I had said in my agreement with the house-
holder that he might not in building make any u.e of
sandstone, this would have implied that he might em-
ploy granite or limestone, or any other stone but the
one excluded. Now, if the law of emancipatien did
make one exclusion and prohibition respecting the titles
of Catholic bishops, it thereby permitted, as perfectly
within law, whatever in that respect came not under
that exception. The Act of Emancipation forbids any
one from assuming or using the style or title of any
bishopric or archbishopric of the Established Church in
England or Ireland.* From this it follows that they are
allowed to assume any other titles. The Bishop of Lon-
don himself has seen this, and, in his answer to the Chapter
of Westminster, acknowledges that the new Catholic
bishops cannot be touched by the law as it stands; but
he wishes Parliament to be petitioned for a new law,
which will narrow the liberty here given us.
" I conclude, therefore—
" First, That Catholics, by law, had a right to be go-
verned by bishops.
" Secondly, That no law or authority bound them to
be for ever governed by vicars apostolic, and that they
were at liberty to have a Hierarchy, that is, an arch-
bishop and bishops with local titles, or titles from places
in the country.
" Thirdly, That accordingly such titles are not against
any law so long as they are not the actual titles held by
the Anglican Hierarchy.
" Fourthly, That all these conditions having been
exactly observed in the late erection of the Catholic
Hierarchy, this is perfectly legal, perfectly lawful, and
unassailable by any present law.
" Then why all the clamour that has been raised? On
what ground does the attack made upon us rest ? Why
have we been denounced—why held up to public hatred?
Why pointed out to public fury? I have not seen one
paper which, during the violence of the storm, thought
it worth while to look into the question of law and
calmly inquire—' Have the Catholics violated or gone
beyond the law of the land? If not, why should they be
thus perseveringly abused?'
"Is it because the Church of Eagland is supposed to
be attacked by this measure of the Catholic Church, or
its securities are threatened? This is the great and
natural grievance of the Anglican clergy in their re-
monstrances. To this I reply, first, that, even when, in
the Emancipation Act, Catholic bishops were restrained
!rum taking the very titles held by the Anglican, this
restriction was not intended, or sill posed, to give the
slighest security to the English Church. Speaking of
it, the Duke of Wellington remarked, that ' the (re-
strictive) clause was no security; but it would give satis-
faction to the United Church of England and Ireland.
According to the laws of England, the title of a diocese
belonged to persons appointed to it by his Majesty; but
it was desirable that others appointed to it by an as-
sumed authority should be discountenanced, and that
was the reason why the clause was introduced. This was
one of the instances which showed how difficult it was
to legislate upon this subject at all. He was aware that
this clause gave no security to the Established Church,
nor strengthened it in any way, but it was inserted to
give satisfaction to those who were disturbed by this as-
sumption of title by the Catholic clergy.'
" Even, therefore, our being restrained from adopting
its very titles, could give no security to the Established
Church; so that we may conclude that still less security
would be given to it by oar being forbidden to assume
titles which are not theirs. The legislation on this sub-
ject had clearly no bearing on the security of the Church
of England; and if we are to be considered guilty of an
aggression against her, and have to be dealt with by
fresh penal legislation, for the purpose of propping her
up, Ido not nee where you can stop, consistently, short
of forbidding Catholics to have any bishops at all. You
cannot make a law that they shall only be governed by
vicars apostolic, which would be acknowledging directly
ihe Pope's power in the realm (which the Protestant
bishops under oath cai.not do); still less can you pro-
ceed to forbidding them to have bishops of any sort,
which would put &rem back into a worse condition than
they were during the operation of th• penal laws. Any
step backward is a trenching on the complete toleration
granted us.

" 2. The appointment of a Catholic hierarchy does
not in any way deprive the English Establishment of a
single advantage which it now possesses. Its bishops
retain, and fur anything that the new bishops will do,
may retain for ever their titles, their rank, their social
position, their pre-eminence, their domestic comforts,
their palaces, their lands, their incomes, without dimi-
nution or alteration. Whatever satisfaction it has been
to you till now to see them so elevated above their Ca-
tholic rivals, and to have their wants so amply provided
for, you will still enjoy as much as hitherto. kind the
same is to be said ot the second order ot clergy. Not an
arehdeaconry ,or deanery, or canonry, or benefice,or l►ving,
will be taken from them, or claimed by the Catholic priest-
hood. The outward aspects of the two Churches will
be the same. The Catholic episcopacy and the Catholic
priesthood will remain no doubt poor, unnoticed by the
great, and by the powerful (so soon as the present com-
motion shall have subsided), without social rank or
pre-eminence. If there be no security for the English
Church, in this overwhelming balance in its favour of
worldly advantages, surely the exclusion of Catholics
from the possession of hied! sees will not save it. It
really appears to be a wish on the part of the clerical
agitators to make people believe, that some tangible
possession of something solid in their respective sees
has been bestowed upon the new bishops—• something
territorial' as it has been called. Time will unmask the
deceit, and show that not an inch of land, or a shilling
of money, has been taken from the Protestants and given
to Catholic.

" 3. Nor is an attempt made to diminish any of the
moral and religious safeguards of that Establishment,
which views our new measure with such watchful
jealousy. Whatever that institution has possessed
or done, to influence the people or attach its
affections, it will still possess, and may con-
tinue to do. That clear, definite, and accordant
teaching of the doctrines of their Church, that fami-
liarity of intercourse and facility of access, that close
and personal mutual acquaintance, that face to face know
ledge of each other, that affectionate confidence and
warm sympathy, which form the truest, and strongest,
and most natural bonds between a pastor and his flock,
a bishop and his people, you will enjoy, to the full, as
much as you have done till now. The new bishops will
not have occasion to cross the path of the prelates of the
Anglican establishment in their sphere of duty; they
will fi❑d plenty to do, besides their official duties, in at-
tending to the wants of their poor spiritual children, es-
pecially the multitudes of poor Irish, whose peaceful and
truly Catholic conduct, under the whirlwind of contumely
which has just assailed them, proves that they have not
forgotten the teaching of their Church—not to revile
when reviled, and when they suffer, not to threaten.
" 4. But, in truth, when I read the frequent boasting
of the papers, and the exulting replies of bishops, that
this movement in the Catholic Church, instead of weak-
ening, has strengthened the Established Church, by
rousing the national Protestantism, and awakening
dormant sympathies for its ecclesiastical organizat on,
I cannot but wonder at the alarm which is ex-
' pressed. The late measure is ridiculed as powerless,
as efle e, as tending only to the overthrow of Popery in
England. Then act ou this conviction; show that you
believe in it; give us the little odds of a title which be-
stows no power, rank, wealth, or influence, on him that
bears it, and keep undisturbed those other realities, and
let the issue be tried on these terms, so much in your
favour. Let it be a fair contention, with theological
weapons and fair arguments. If you prevail, and Ca-
tholicity is extingu:shed in the island, it will he a vic-
tory without remorse. It will have been achieved by
the power of the Spirit, and not by the arm of flesh; it
will prove your cru.e to be divine. But if, in spite of all
your present advantage, our religion does advance, does
win over to it the learned, the devout, and the charit-
able—does spread itself widely among the poor and
simple—then you will not check its progress by forbid-
ring a Catholic bishop to take the title of liexhism or of
Clif. on.

" But it will be no doubt said, that many who do not
greatly sympathise with the Establishment are indig-
nant at the late measure, not because Catholics have ob-
tained a hierarchy, but because its appointment is the
viork of the P,,pe. This interference of Rome has
aroused so much public feeling. Let us then inquire into
this point.
" SEC. 111.-110 W COULD CATHOLICS OBTAIN THEIR

HIERARCHY?

" We have seen that, not only we possess a full right,
by law, to be governed by bishops, but that we have an
equal right to be governed by them according to the
proper and perfect form of episcopal government, that is,
by bishops in ordinary, having their sees and titles in
the country.

"If we bare a perfect right to all this, we have NO
less a perfect right to employ the only means by which
to obtain it.

" We have seen that Catholics are allowed by law to
maintain the Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical and re-
ligious matters; and one point of that supremacy is, that
he alone can constitute a hierarchy, or appoint bishops.
Throughout the Catholic world this is the same. Even
where the civic power, by an arrangement with the Pope,
names, that is proposes, a person to be a bishop, he can-
not be consecrated without the Pope's confirmation or
acceptance; and if consecrated already, he can have no
power to perf irm any functions of his office without the
same sanction.

"If therefore the Catholics of this country were ever
to have a hit rarchy at all, it could only be through the
Pope. He alone could grtnt it.
" This is no new or unknown doctrine; it has long
been familiar to our state men, as well as to every one
who has studied Catholic principles.
" Lord John Busse'', in his speech in the House of
Commons, August 6, 1846, thus sensibly speaks upon
the subject:—' There is another offence of introducing a
bull of the Pope into the country. The question is,
whether it is desirable to keep up that or any other pe.
platy for such an offence. It does not appear to me that
we can possibly attempt to prevent the introduction of
the Pore'{ hull. into this country. There are certain