under his presidency-in regard to which I have to complain that Mr. Gladstone has torn the passage he has quoted, not merely from the context of the sixteen resolutions which precede and follow it, but from the concluding sentences of the resolution itself, which would suffice to show that not the question of Papal Infallibility, but an even more serious question, agitated and absorbed the mind of the Synod. It was a moment of terrible anxiety and panic throughout the Catholic Church, throughout the British Empire. Napoleon's power had reached its utmost height. He had just added Illyria, Austrian Gallicia, the Pontifical States to the terriories of the Empire. He was proceeding to annex Hanover to his brother Jerome's kingdom of Westphalia. Poland, Holland, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Rhenish Provinces were governed by kings or viceroys of his family. He had apparently annihilated the power of Prussia. He confidently expected, and it was expected in England as an almost inevitable calamity, that Spain and Portugal would before summer be swept clear of the British Army. It was the time in which the London Corporation, in a petition to Parliament, accused Sir Arthur Wellesley of the "rashness, ostentation, and useless valour" which he had displayed in the battle of Talavera. The Pope was a close prisoner, not merely deprived of his States, but cut off from all communication with the College of Cardinals and the Churches of the world. The four Gallican Articles had just been proclaimed part of the public law of the French Empire. The divorce of Josephine was proceeding. An immeasurably more powerful despot than Henry VIII. seemed to the minds of men to be pursuing the same path, with the Vicar of Christ absolutely within his power. It is curious to remember that at this supreme moment of its destiny, though the principal reason alleged by Napoleon for his detention of the Pope was the friendship of his Holiness for England, the protection he had awarded a British Minister, the fact that he would persist in blessing and praying for heretics whom he ought rather to curse and excommunicate, nevertheless England was, in the winter of 1809-10, in just as great a panic about the Pope as about Napoleon. No one in England believed in the sublime and indomitable firmness of Pius VII. It was confidently calculated that he must succumb, and that his influence as head of the Catholic Church would then become an integral part of the power of France. An invasion of Ireland was anticipated as the next enterprise to Napoleon's hand after he had driven Lord Wellington to his ships,-and not without reason, for his correspondence contains the directions to General Clarke to prepare plans for an invasion of Ireland in 1811; and Clarke, an Irishman himself, well acquainted with Wolfe Tone's brilliant and skilful schemes, was admirably qualified for the task. Even Mr. Grattan, when introducing the Catholic Petition in the House of Commons, soon after the Irish Bishops passed the resolution, of which Mr. Gladstone has quoted the first sentences, was so appalled by the prospect as to exclaim :—

"Let me suppose the Pope to be made by Bonaparte, to be a French subject, and to nominate by his direction Catholic Bishops for Ireland.

If under that circumstance an invasion should happen, what would be our situation, with French troops and French bishops in our country?"

I will now quote the resolution of the Irish Bishops in full. Here is the part of it that Mr. Gladstone gives :

"That said Oath, and the promises, declarations, abjurations, and protestations therein contained are, notoriously, to the Roman Catholic Church at large, become a part of the Roman Catholic religion, as taught by us the Bishops, and received and maintained by the Roman Catholic Churches in Ireland; and as such are approved and sanctioned by the other Roman Catholic Churches."

Here is the part of it that Mr. Gladstone does not give :

"So that it appears to us utterly impossible that any way is left to any foreign authority whereby the allegiance of Irish Catholics can be assailed, unless by that, which God avert! of open invasion, in which extreme supposition, as we will persevere by God's grace to do our duty, so we have certain hope that every true son of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland will eagerly prove how well his religion can stand with the most heroic allegiance."

Can there be a doubt in the mind of any man who reads this resolution in its entirety, in the light of the time in which is was written, having regard to those to whom it was addressed, that its one paramount object was to make a profession of unhesitating, unqualified allegiance, in view of the dangers that menaced the State? But it will be objected that the resolution says the oath of 1793 had become a part of the Roman Catholic religion as taught by the Bishops. The phraseology of this clause of the resolution is certainly agitated and ambiguous. A Synod of Irish Bishops could no more make an oath taken out of an Act of Parliament a part of the Catholic religion, than the Parliament of Natal could bind the British Empire by a resolution. This I may assume to be notorious to all educated persons, and especially to Mr. Gladstone, who still seems to doubt whether even a General Council can add to the defined dogmas of the Church. I say it in no spirit of irreverence, but the prevailing panic seems to me to have somewhat unsettled the etymology of the King's English among the gravest personages. I can no more justify these terms of the Irish Bishops in their strict sense, than I can justify the criticism of the Corporation of London on the tactical qualities diplayed by Sir Arthur Wellesley at Talavera. At a time when even Mr. Grattan's language grew confused, it may be imagined in what hotch-potch Lord Castlereagh expressed himself. But after all, is not the real question at issue,--What did the Irish Bishops teach concerning the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility, as refered to in the oath of 1793? I have stated their teaching in 1793, when the oath was being settled, on Archbishop Troy's authority. Archbishop Troy was present at the meeting of 1810. Could any statesman of the time imagine that the doctrine of the Irish Bishops in regard to the Pope's Infallibility differed in 1810 from what it was in 1793? I make bold to say, having read the debates in both Houses with some care, in

the course of which, not the second resolution merely, but the whole series of sixteen, were carefully analyzed and considered (I would refer Mr. Gladstone in particular to Lord Erskine's very remarkable speech), that the topic of Infallibility was never so much as touched upon. What the statesmen of that time really wanted was to get some security that the Pope would not, to repeat Mr. Grattan's phrase, nominate "French Bishops." In order to obviate this danger they wished the Irish Bishops at once to give the King the right of veto, if not of nomination. The Irish Bishops refused point-blank to consider any question concerning the supreme prerogative of the Sovereign Pontiff while he was a prisoner, or even to recognize any briefs purporting to come from him on such a subject, until they had evidence that he was in the enjoyment of his absolute freedom. They were very much condemned at the time for standing so stoutly by the Pope when he was in such a hopeless strait. No one dreamed of supposing, as Mr. Gladstone seems to do, that they were taking advantage of such an occasion to disavow any part of the respect due to his Chair.

I pass from the resolution of 1810 to the assurances said to have been given by Dr. Doyle and other prelates in evidence before the House of Lords in 1825. I feel that I press unduly upon your space. but I can afford to be very brief upon this point. The House of Lords examined four Irish prelates in 1825-Archbishop Curtis, Archbishop Murray Archbishop Kelly, and Bishop Doyle. There was not a question addressed to the three Archbishops having any relation, direct or indirect, to the question of Infallibility. Dr. Doyle was asked (p. 387) "what was meant by the Infallibility of the Pope, and he replied :—

"There are so many divines who have written on the subject, and they have given such very long definitions of it, that I should do much better by referring your Lordships to them than by giving a definition myself. Melchior Cano has a long treatise on the Infallibility of the Pope."

Again, when asked about the Gallican Liberties, he says (p. 509) :—

I cannot say to your Lordships that the Gallican Liberties, as such, were ever formally received or acknowledged in our country, but the substance of the docrine taught in them is held by a great number of our divines."

Can any one read such questions and such answers and suppose that Parliament was seriously seeking and receiving assurances and guarantees on the subject of Papal Infallibility? Some hasty expressions of Dr. Doyle have been quoted in the course of this controversy. It is not a part of my task either to vindicate or to condemn his language. But may be excused for calling attention to his true view of the authority of the Pope in matters of faith, expressed on a sufficiently serious occasion, in relation to a declaration of Mr. Robinson, then (1824) Chancellor of the Exchequer, afterwards Lord Ripon, in favour of a reunion of the English and Roman Churches :

I

I myself am probably one of the most moderate divines in the Empire; certainly I would wish, with the Apostle, to be separated for a time from Christ for my brethren, either Protestant or Catholic; but I would, with the grace of God, suffer death a thousand times, were it possible, rather than assent to anything regarding faith which would not be approved of by the Successor of Peter. I am sure, I am certain, that the Pope is the Head of the Universal Church, and that the rejection of his just authority is ruinous to religion."*

I will now close the proofs I have offered in contradiction of Mr. Gladstone's main charge by a somewhat large statement, which, if I have not spent much pains in vain, will, however, remain uncorrected. I say, then, that if the whole correspondence on Catholic affairs that passed with Ministers of the Crown from the time of Mr. Pitt to the time of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel be read through, there will be found no apology, no undertaking, no assurance, no serious allusion even to the subject of Infallibility. So utterly unfounded and opposed to fact is the assertion that we deceived the Crown and Legislature in any way as to this doctrine, by statement, suggestion of what was false, suppression of what was true, or by silence. I refer Mr. Gladstone particularly to the series of memoranda by Dean Philpotts, who was the Duke of Wellington's principal adviser on matters of doctrine, in 1827 and 1828. Their spirit may be expressed in a sentence,-" Renounce doctrinal declarations against Popery; get instead a pledge to maintaintain the Church Establishment." So it was that the clause in the Irish Act of 1793 by common consent quietly vanished in 1829. I need hardly say that after the great victory of the Clare election, the Catholics of Ireland were not much in the mood to conclude a capitulation on the question as to whether the Infallibility of the Pope was to be regarded as a doctrine or as an article. I say it in no vaunting spirit, that we should never have treated at that moment on such terms. We had marched into the Constitution with drums beating and colours flying; and it is to the immortal fame of the English nation that when the contest of centuries so came to a sudden and a manly end, we were received with more than the honours of war. I thank you with all my heart for having allowed me to vindicate in your pages the good faith and fair fame of the Catholics of both kingdoms by clearing up these somewhat obscure passages of our common history.

The following is the Irish Catholic Oath of 1793, generally known as Dr. Duigenan's oath, taken after the ordinary declaration of allegiance.

"I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion. I, A. B. do swear, that I do abjure, condemn, and detest, as un-christian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, destroy, or any ways injure any person whatsoever, for or under the pretence of being an heretic; and I do declare solemnly before God, that I believe that no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused by, or under pretence, or colour, that it was done either for the

* Fitzpatrick's "Life of Dr. Doyle," vol. i. p. 334.

good of the Church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever. I also declare, that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess, that the Pope is Infallible, or that I am bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral, though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such order; but, on the contrary, I hold, that it would be sinful in me to pay any respect or obedience thereto; I further declare, that I do not believe that any sin whatsoever committed by me can be forgiven at the mere will of any Pope, or any Priest, or of any person whatsoever; but that sincere sorrow for past sins, a firm and sincere resolution to avoid future guilt, and to atone to God, are previous and indispensable requisites to establish a well-founded expectation of forgiveness; and that any person who receives absolution without these previous requisites, so far from obtaining thereby any remission of his sins, incurs the additional guilt of violating a sacrament; and I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power, the settlement and arrangement of property in this country, as established by the laws now in being; I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead; and I do solemnly swear, that I will not exercise any privilege, to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant Government in this Kingdom.

"So help me God."

We subjoin the Oath of the Act of 1829, which was taken by Catholics on all public occasions upon which testimony of allegiance was required, until by an Act of the present reign an oath containing no reference to religious doctrines, and common to all Her Majesty's subjects, was substituted.

"I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Fourth, and will defend him to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown, which succession, by an act, intituled An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of this realm and I do further declare, that it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever; and I do declare, that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws: and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the pre