while seeking justice for themselves, had been no friends to Catholic emancipation; and were far more hostile than churchmen to the endowment of Maynooth.1 And in 1851, they joined the church in resenting an aggressive movement of the Pope, which was felt to be an insult to the Protestant people of England. For some time irritation had been growing, in the popular mind, against the church of Rome. The activity of the priesthood was everywhere apparent. Chapels were built, and religious houses founded.2 A Catholic cathedral was erected in London. Sisters of mercy, in monastic robes, offended the eyes of Protestants. Tales of secret proselytism abounded. No family was believed to be safe from the designs of priests and Jesuits. Protestant heiresses had taken the veil, and endowed convents: wives of Protestant nobles and gentlemen had secretly renounced the faith in which their marriage vows were given: fathers, at the point of death, had disinherited their own flesh and blood, to satisfy the extortion of confessors. Young men at Oxford, in training for the church, had been perverted to Romanism. At the same time, in the church herself, the tractarian, or high church clergy, were reverting to ceremonies associated with that faith; and several had been gained over to the church of Rome. While Protestants, alarmed by these symptoms, were disposed to over-estimate their significance, the ultramontane party among the Catholics, encouraged by a trifling and illusory success, conceived the extravagant design of reclaiming Protestant England to the fold of the Catholic church. In September, 1850, Pope Pius IX., persuaded that the time had come for asserting his ancient pretensions The Pope's within this realm, published a brief, providing for brief, 1850. the ecclesiastical government of England. Hitherto the church of Rome in England had been superintended by eight vicars apostolic; but now the Pope, considering the "already large number of Catholics," and "how the hindrances which 1 See infra, p. 455. 2 See supra, p. 119. dent, has since lost all but a nominal place in the ecclesias tical polity of the realm. And what have become the component parts of the legislature, which directs the government, discipline, revenues, nay even the doctrines, of the church? The Commons, who have attained a dominant authority, are representatives of England, one third nonconformist, – of Presbyterian Scotland, and of Catholic Ireland. In the union of church and state no such anomaly had been foreseen; yet has it been the natural consequence of the Reformation, followed by the consolidation of these realms and the inevitable recognition of religious liberty in a free state. dissent upon However painful the history of religious schisms and conInfluence of flicts, they have not been without countervailing political uses. They have extended religious instruction, liberty. and favored political liberty. If the church and dissenters, united, have been unequal to meet the spiritual needs of this populous land, what could the church, alone and unaided, have accomplished? Even if the resources of dissent had been placed in her hands, rivalry would have been wanting, which has stimulated the zeal of both. Liberty owes much to schism. It brought down the high prerogatives of the Tudors and Stuarts; and in later times, has been a powerful auxiliary in many popular movements. The undivided power of the church, united to that of the crown and aristocracy, might have proved too strong for the people. But while she was weakened by dissent, a popular party was growing up, opposed to the close political organization with which she was associated. This party was naturally ioined by dissenters; and they fought side by side in the long struggle for civil and religious liberty. The church and dissenters, generally opposed on political questions affecting religion, have been prompt to The Papal aggression, make common cause against the church of Rome. The same strong spirit of Protestantism which united them in resistance to James II. and his House, has since brought them together on other occasions. Dissenters 1850. while seeking justice for themselves, had been no friends to Catholic emancipation; and were far more hostile than churchmen to the endowment of Maynooth. And in 1851, they joined the church in resenting an aggressive movement. of the Pope, which was felt to be an insult to the Protestant people of England. For some time irritation had been growing, in the popular mind, against the church of Rome. The activity of the priesthood was everywhere apparent. Chapels were built, and religious houses founded. A Catholic cathedral was erected in London. Sisters of mercy, in monastic robes, offended the eyes of Protestants. Tales of secret proselytism abounded. No family was believed to be safe from the designs of priests and Jesuits. Protestant heiresses had taken the veil, and endowed convents: wives of Protestant nobles and gentlemen had secretly renounced the faith in which their marriage vows were given: fathers, at the point of death, had disinherited their own flesh and blood, to satisfy the extortion of confessors. Young men at Oxford, in training for the church, had been perverted to Romanism. At the same time, in the church herself, the tractarian, or high church clergy, were reverting to ceremonies associated with that faith; and several had been gained over to the church of Rome. While Protestants, alarmed by these symptoms, were disposed to over-estimate their significance, the ultramontane party among the Catholics, encouraged by a trifling and illusory success, conceived the extravagant design of reclaiming Protestant England to the fold of the Catholic church. In September, 1850, Pope Pius IX., persuaded that the time had come for asserting his ancient pretensions The Pope's within this realm, published a brief, providing for brief, 1850. the ecclesiastical government of England. Hitherto the church of Rome in England had been superintended by eight vicars apostolic; but now the Pope, considering the "already large number of Catholics," and "how the hindrances which 1 See infra, p. 455. 2 See supra, p. 119. stood in the way of the spreading of the Catholic faith are daily being removed," saw fit to establish "the ordinary form of episcopal rule in that kingdom;" and accordingly divided the country into one metropolitan, and twelve episcopal sees. And to his archbishop and bishops he gave "all the rights and privileges which the Catholic archbishops and bishops, in other states, have and use, according to the common ordinances of the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions." Nor did the brief omit to state that the object of this change was "the wellbeing and advancement of Catholicity throughout England." 1 Cardinal Wiseman's pastoral. This was followed by a pastoral of Cardinal Wiseman, on his appointment as Archbishop of Westminster, exulting in the supposed triumph of his church. "Your beloved country," said he, "has received a place among the fair churches which, normally constituted, form the splendid aggregate of Catholic communion: Catholic England has been restored to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament, from which its light had long vanished, and begins now anew its course of regularly adjusted action round the centre of unity, the source of jurisdiction, of light, and of vigor." 2 The enthronization of the new bishops was celebrated with great pomp; and exultant sermons were preached on the revival of the Catholic church. In one of these, Dr. Newman, himself a recent Catholic bishops enthroned. convert, - declared that "the people of England, who for so many years have been separated from the see of Rome, are about, of their own will, to be added to the holy church." No acts or language could have wounded more deeply the traditional susceptibilities of the English people. indignation. For three hundred years, the papal supremacy had been renounced, and the Romish faith held in abhorEven diplomatic relations with the sovereign of the Roman States, as a temporal prince, had until lately Popular rence. 1 Papal Brief, Sept. 30th, 1850; Ann. Reg., 1850, App. 405. been forbidden.1 And now the Pope had assumed to parcel out the realm into Romish bishoprics, and to embrace the whole community in his jurisdiction. Never, since the Popish plot, had the nation been so stirred with wrath and indignation. Early in November, Lord John Russell, the Premier, increased the public excitement by a letter to the Bishop of Durham, denouncing "the aggression of the Pope as insolent and insidious," and associating it with the practices of the tractarian clergy of the Church of England.2 Clergy and laity, churchmen and dissenters, vied with one another in resentful demonstrations; and in the bonfires of the 5th of November, hitherto the sport of children, the obnoxious effigies of the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman were immolated, amidst the execrations of the multitude. No one could doubt the Protestantism of England. Calm observers saw in these demonstrations ample proof that the papal pretensions, however insolent, were wholly innocuous; and Cardinal Wiseman, perceiving that in his over-confidence he had mistaken the temper of the people, sought to moderate their anger by a conciliatory address. The ambitious episcopate now assumed the modest proportions of an arrangement for the spiritual care of a small body of Roman Catholics. of the case. Meanwhile, the government and a vast majority of the people were determined that the papal aggression Difficulties shall be repelled; but how? If general scorn and indignation could repel an insult, it had already been amply repelled; but action was expected on the part of the state; and how was it to be taken? Had the laws of England been violated? The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 forbade the assumption of any titles belonging to the bishops of the Church of England and Ireland; but the titles of these new bishops being taken from places not appropriated 3 1 In 1848 an Act was passed, with some difficulty, to allow diplomatic relations with the sovereign of the Roman States.-11 & 12 Vict. c. 108; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xcvi. 169; ci. 227, 234. 2 Nov. 4th, 1850; Ann. Reg., 1850, p. 198. 8 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, s. 24. |