because he has received that power from God, but because he has a temporal authority over particular states, which at some time or another have been surrendered or given to his predecessors in the holy see. This distinction is nowhere, however, made by any pope: we say, and we say it advisedly, that in no bull, deposing a prince, does the pope, who publishes it, assume that power solely on account of the supposed claim he may have on that state, as having been once in his actual or implied possession. Dr. Slevin confesses, he cannot positively affirm that the popes have not asserted the deposing power, jure divino; he adds, that many of them, though conscious themselves they did not possess it by divine authority, wished the world to believe they did. We will leave it to Dr. Slevin to settle this point with his infallible popes, who, according to his own statement, assert, ex cathedrâ, that they are endowed with powers to which, they are well aware, they can lay no just claim. We further leave it to Dr. Slevin to explain, how he conceives that, jure humano, the popes could dispose of America, and give all countries discovered, or which might afterwards be discovered, on the east of an imaginary line, drawn from pole to pole, one hundred leagues westward of the Azores, to the Portuguese, and on the other side of this line, to the Spaniards. It is hardly possible to conceive that the holy father virtually possessed countries, of the very existence of which he was ignorant. But admitting that in all these cases the popes were acting 'jure humano,' the doctrine is almost equally dangerous: for there are few European and no American states over which some pope has not nominally been master, and of which, at some time or other, he has not granted investiture. Over these, it is admitted, that, jure humano, he has had temporal power, and therefore Pius V. did not err in deposing Elizabeth, he deriving his power, in that instance, from the surrender, by John, of England and Ireland. We beg our readers to remark, that no pope has avowed his relinquishment of this power of deposing jure divino, still less that of deposing jure humano; to this hour no pope has formally abandoned his claim to England and Ireland; and therefore, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom over which Leo XII. might not claim temporal jurisdiction-a position which, in substance, is asserted by Bellarmine, approved of by the Italian prelates, if not by many others, and not resisted by any who sustain the ultramontane doctrines.

These doctrines are, indeed, directly opposed by what are termed the Gallican Liberties, which are contained in four propositions drawn up by the French clergy in 1682. The first very clearly denies the temporal power of the church; the second insists on the supremacy of general councils over the pope; the

third affirms, that laws and usages in the Gallican church, and also in others, should subsist without variation; and the fourth, that the judgment of the pope is not above being reformed or revised, unless it has obtained the assent of the church. To these tenets all were obliged to subscribe who took degrees at the Sorbonne, and few, if any, of the French prelates ever disputed their justice and propriety. It has so often been said, that the Irish clergy also had agreed to them, that we really supposed this to be the case; and we have consequently been surprised to find that the policy of that church has uniformly tended to support the transalpine doctrines. We do not in the least doubt that such is the case-notwithstanding the equivocating answers of Dr. Slevin, who imagines that the Roman Catholic bishops do assent to them; for, when the only bishop* who appears as a witness is examined, (Dr. M'Hale, bishop of Maronia and coadjutor bishop of Killala,) he states, distinctly, that he does not approve of those doctrines; that when he was professor of dogmatic theology at Maynooth, he never taught them; and during his whole residence there, (seven years as student and eleven as lecturer,) he never heard them inculcated.+ In this he is supported by various other witnesses, who add, that even Dr. M'Hale's predecessor, Dr. Delahogue, an emigrant Frenchman and a doctor of the Sorbonne, where he must have subscribed them, did not attempt to urge these particular tenets. Who can doubt that this person's conduct in thus surrendering his own opinions was influenced by the knowledge he possessed of the secret, if not the avowed, wishes of the trustees ?-particularly when it is observed that, for six years, Dr. M'Hale acted as Dr. Delahogue's assistant. No more then, we think, need be said to prove that the Irish church does not, as a body, admit these articles, or permit them to be taught.

Although these articles are thus hostile to the supremacy of the pope, they admit that great authority pertains to general councils; and as by them many important decrees have been promul

Dr. Murray was examined, but not on theological questions.

6

The passage in Dr. M'Hale's evidence on this subject is too long for insertion. Our readers will find it in p. 317. Two sentences, however, we must extract:-'I wish distinctly to declare, that we did not adopt what are generally called the opinions of the Gallican church, contained in the four propositions of 1682-which, if pressed to the consequences of which they are susceptible, would appear to be subversive of the due independence of the church.' I may further state, as a fact, that in the full sense of the term, they never were taught in the College of Maynooth. Nay, Dr. Delahogue himself, a native of France, showed one of those minds that are superior to prejudices of country or of education; and content to follow the defined line of Catholic doctrine, he did not obtrude particular opinions on the college. I should also say, that the introduction of all the propositions of the Gallican church would seem to me to lessen the salutary influence of the Roman pontiff, which we consider necessary for the interests of religion.' Dr M'Hale is, at all events, fair and explicit.

gated

gated with reference to temporal as well as to spiritual affairs, it was highly necessary to inquire into the doctrine respecting them, taught by the professors at Maynooth. We think that doctrine is, -that councils are superior to the pope; that their decrees on matters of faith are infallible and immutable; and that, as such, they must be admitted by the bishops, without hesitation or delay. It would seem that, in temporal affairs, they have less right to expect implicit obedience. Yet, as often as they have interfered in such matters, and few councils have confined their attention exclusively to spiritual concerns, they have uniformly enforced their mandates. It was inquired, how far such conduct was justifiable; and the answer, doubtfully given by some witnesses, more positively by others, was, that as, in all councils, many sovereigns were present, either personally or by their ambassadors, those decisions which trenched on temporal matters were to be considered as the acts of the whole assembled persons, not as the acts of ecclesiastics alone, or of the assembly as an ecclesiastical assembly. The censures of the church, too, which were always declared to impend over the heads of those who disobeyed their orders, were, it is said, only intended as in aid of the civil authorities, on whom fell the charge of executing those decrees: for, as is laid down in a class-book at Maynooth: Multa sunt decreta quæ non pertinent ad invariabilem fidei regulam, sed sunt accommodata temporibus atque negotiis.' On this we will make but one remark: that, as this very plea was held to justify the crusades against the Albigenses and Valdenses, as well as the execution of Huss, we should like to know whether, even now, any strong declaration of authority by a council against those whom they would term heretics, provided it were supported by sufficient force, would not be held to be accommodata temporibus atque negotiis'? As Romish divines, almost without exception, have defended the doctrines laid down by general councils and the conduct they pursued, the professors of Maynooth were obliged to follow the same line. They appear, however, to feel, that the task was not devoid of difficulty; and we recommend our readers to peruse with special attention that portion of the evidence of Dr. Crotty and Dr. Slevin, which relates to the fourth council of Lateran, and the council of Constance. In the first of those, a crusade was published against the wretched Albigenses and Valdenses; all vassals were released from their obedience to princes who supported those sects; and all persons were excommunicated who should not, within twelve months, exterminate the heretics within their reach. When Dr. Crotty was pressed, with respect to this gross interference with temporal rights, he sheltered himself behind the explanation we have just given, and affirmed

that

that this decree was the work of the laity-but Gregory IX. has thought fit to insert it among his decretals, and thus made it canon law! Even were we to admit this excuse, with reference to the fourth council of Lateran, it seems to us utterly impossible to apply it with justice to the council of Constance. That council was originally summoned to decide upon the conflicting claims of the three pontiffs, Gregory XII., John XXIII., and Benedict XIII. They all asserted superior power; each excommunicated the adherents of his two rivals; and thus, at one time, the whole Christian world lay under this severe sentence. Before this council John Huss was ordered to appear, for having propagated Wickliffe's doctrines in Bohemia. Not trusting to his enemies, who composed the majority in the council, before he left Prague he obtained a safe-conduct from Sigismund, which commanded all persons within his dominions (and Constance was an imperial city) to let him (Huss) freely and securely pass, sojourn, and return.' Notwithstanding, soon after his arrival at Constance, he was arrested, and after about six months' imprisonment, convicted of heresy by the council. He was degraded, and then delivered over to the secular arm for punishment; and, accordingly, without other trial, and solely in consequence of the sentence of the council, on July 7th, 1415, he was burnt alive. Strong remonstrances having been made by the Bohemians, and much blame having been cast on Sigismund and on the council, they, in their defence, declared that this most mighty prince,' (Sigismund,) in his treatment of John Huss, notwithstanding the foresaid safe-conduct, did aright that which was lawful and becoming; and whosoever should detract from this sacred council or his royal majesty, or in any manner speak evil of them on account of their acts in the affair of the forementioned John Huss, should be punished without remission as a favourer of heretical pravity, and guilty of the crime of lese-majesty.' The commissioners were anxious to know how far the conduct of this infallible council was justified and supported. The question was, indeed, perplexing, as the trial and condemnation were purely spiritual; and it seemed not a little unjust to blame the secular power for carrying into effect the punishment which the council had virtually decreed, since declaring Huss a heretic was, as they well knew, in fact condemning him to the flames. But as no good Catholic could censure the proceedings of so orthodox a council, which had deposed three popes, Dr. Crotty and Mr. Higgins, the present professor of dogmatic theology, thought it much more advisable to justify than to blame the conduct of the council. They affirm that the words of the safe-conduct only protected Huss on his road to Constance, and did not guarantee his return; that even if it did, that pro

tection

tection being injurious to the Christian religion, and derogatory to the rights of the church, it was unlawful, and therefore the council was not bound to observe it ;* and that his death was not by order of the spiritual authorities. The reply may be short. In the first place, the safe-conduct covered his return in the most explicit terms, ―next, such a defence is substantially admitting that no faith need be kept where heretics are concerned, since heresy may always be considered injurious to the true Christian religion, and the support of it derogatory to the rights of the church, and lastly, that the council did virtually, if not in words, order the execution of Huss. We cannot but think it would have been more prudent in our gentlemen of Maynooth not to have so warmly defended such transactions as these.

The most important question arising under the head of canon law, is the claim made by Catholics over whatsoever property has once belonged to the church, and has been alienated from it without the consent of the pope. The whole revenues of the Protestant church in Ireland are in this situation, and our readers. must be well aware that the claim alluded to has often been asserted in no unambiguous terms, if not by the prelates of the Catholic church, at least by many who are supposed to speak their sentiments, and whose exertions have received the repeated thanks of the assembled clergy as well as of the laity. On this point there seems no doubt, that the popes have uniformly, at least from the time of Paul II., claimed the right of interference in the disposal of church property, nor have they ever admitted the legality of any alienation to which they had not assented. They further lay down as a principle, that whoever, without their approbation, has acquired church property, whether by confiscation, by purchase, or by inheritance, be he Catholic or heretic, is bound to restore it without compensation,

as

soon as it can be made available to religious purposes. This claim has been advanced in many cases; but we shall mention only two or three of late occurrence. Clement XI.,

*The words of the council are, although by natural, human, or divine law, any faith or promise which is prejudicial to the Catholic faith need not be kept.' Dr. Crotty, in vindicating the council, is somewhat embarrassed with these words, as he cannot, of course, directly admit that no faith is to be kept with heretics; he, therefore, chooses to imagine that they have reference solely to unlawful promises. This does not materially alter the case; for as it rests with the Catholic church to declare whether a promise is lawful or not, it still enables them to violate their oaths, and then shelter themselves by declaring that the oath was in itself unlawful. Thuanus, whose works Dr. Crotty, by the bye, has never read, says that the divines in his time publicly contended that no faith was to be kept with heretics, and defended their assertions by the authority of the council of Constance. The third council of Lateran asserts this same proposition. It says, in the twenty-seventh chapter, That all those who are any ways bound to heretics should consider themselves absolved from all fidelity and obedience to them, so long as they persist in their iniquity.?