%a3A!N[Ht\V y 0AHVHaiH^ ^Aavaan-i^' ^.QKAllFQftfc ^WE-UNIVERS/a vvlOSAMEt£j> ^•IIBRARYQ^ <$L\ ^OJIIVJJO^ ^il33NV-SO^ ^/SMAINIHlW* ^OJIIVD-JO^ %JJ \V\E»ERty> ^lOSANCElfj> y %il3A!N,T3\\V <^UiBRARY0/ ^M-UBRARYQ^ ^ojitvd jo^ ^afojnvo-jo^" ^OFCAl.lF0%, ^0FCAilF(% ^Aaviian-^ ^3 s? «ct -;. Wtf-IWIVEI - ■»— — m rv — ; g A >— -* ± v/saiAWiimv $U!BRARY0/\ ^LIBRAHY^ ^OJI]V)JO V ^OdllVJJO & *j iT)i l(p~l :iAIN!l"]\\V N ^0FCAUFC% ^-OF-CALI ^/Aavnan-v^' ^ahvhhii #' & ^i s HvV v ^MINIVERS//, o .VIOSAKCI O X ■^ 5 % WON'IVW//, y ^lOS-ANCElfj*^ <> ■?-, iflfj^ .^•LiBRARY^ , x \\i •^2 I 4 ..,i^« ^J $ *J I lg Uu . »»-0»*. fc»-3j*' I '■'!■ fr»-<*« ECCLESIASTICAL DEMOCRACY DETECTED. *•>•«•*! Lately publlfhed by the Rev. JOHN MILNER, Price Eighteen Pence, A SFRMON preached in the Catholic Chapel at Win- defter, April 23, 1789, being the General Thankfgiv- ing day for his Majefty's happy recovery ; with hiftoncal notes, explanations, &c. An Hiiio'ical -<-<= X T is obfervable that the errors which in perpetual fucceffion, during eighteen centu- ries, have attacked the faith and the peace of the church, have generally partaken of the prevailing fpirit of the times, which have given rife to them. Not to enter into a de- tail of ancient errors, it is certain that thofe of the prefent day partake of the infatuated prejudice againft fubordination, which fo ftrongly marks it. Our prefent ecclefiaftical reformers aim at nothing lefs than a general change in the government and conftitution of the church, by counteracting as much as poffible the influence of thole monarchical and arifto- cratical principles on which Chrift has formed B this C * 3 this government*, and by infufing a propor- tionable degree of the democratical fpirit in its place. This they do whilft they endeavour to leflen the dependance of the faithful upon their paftors, and of the pallors themfelves on their fupreme head. There is no one who, in this country, has followed up this fyftem more clofely or more perfeveringly than the titled adverfary with whom I have the honor of contending, in the face of the public, now for the third time: which conduct, however confiftent with his political attachments and principles"!", I have already proved, and (hall further demonftrate, is utterly fubverfive of * See the proofs and authorities for this affertion in The Divine Right of Epifcopacy, pages 17, 18. + It is with regret the Catholic body has feen the name of this gentleman in the lift of ihofe perfons wha have entitled themfelves/' /* Fri-nJs of the People, officiated f'.r the pttrpofe of obtaining a pcrliamiritary reform, and have learned from the public prints, that he was, at an early meeting, chofen to prefidc over it. The alarm which this fociety has occafioned to the legifiaturc and to the nation in general, as we gather from the language of both Ilnufes of Pa'tthanfcnt, and of the addrefies to his Ma- jefty, upon his late proclamation, will belt determine with what propriety thefe gentlemen have affumed the infidious titl© of i he L ritndi of the People, the C 3 ] the difcipline, the doflrine, and the very ex- iftence of the Catholic Church. It was at a momentous period, when two out of our four bifhops had juft paid the debt of nature, and the deareft interefts of our re- ligion were conceived to depend on the ap- pointment which the fupreme paftor might make of their fuccefTors, that a young lay gentleman ftepped out of his rank to tutor the whole body of the clergy in divinity and the canon law. In a pamphlet folely addrefled to that body*, he condefcended to acquaint them with ** the rules by which the Church " of Chrift was governed for feveral hundred " years .... and to which as minifters of the " church they were bound to conform .... " under the guilt of a culpable neglect of their " dutyt." He in particular acquainted them that " the appointment of bifhops forms no " part of the Pope's fpiritual commif^lonJ,' , and that fuch a claim, on his parr, is " a claim •« of fuperfeding the difcipline of the church^." He gave them notice that the authority under * A Letter addrejfed to the Catholic Clergy of Enolav.d on the appointment of Bifhops , by a Lajman, 'June 12, 1790. + Ibid. Second Edition, pages 15, 16. % ibid. p.. 16. § Ibid. B 2 which C 4 1 which our prefent bifhops governed their flocks, was derived from ufurpation*, and that thefe bifhops were actually " deftitute of the " power of the keyst." He inftru£led them however in what manner they themfelves, together with the laity, might make up all the deficiencies, under which their prelates la- boured; namely by " aflembling in their re- " fpe&ive diftri&s, and choofing thefe foreign " emifTaries," as he called them, " to be their u bifhopsj." He reproached the moll nume- rous body of this clergy with " having facri- " ficed the rights of the people, and bowed " their necks to a foreign yoke," in not hav- ing " dared to proceed to an election" of the gentleman, in whofe favor, he had faid " their *' fuffrages were unanimous^," but in having " contented + " Aflemble and choofe for your bifhops the perfons *' who now, by a lamentable abufe, prefide over you by " virtue of an authority delegated to them by a foreign *' prelate who has no pretcnfions to exercifc fuch an aft " of power." Ibid. J>ages 21, 22. + Ibid. f. \(j. X Pages 21 , 22. § Pages 22, 23. — The layman having been reproached in the Divine Right of Epijczpacy, p. 14. with the notorious falfehood of this aflertion. has added a note to his fecond edition r s ] " contented themfelves with recommending " him to the nomination of a foreign prelate." In fupportof this ftrange and mifchievous fyf- tem he brought forward a few hackneyed quo- tations from the ancient fathers and councils, to be met with in moil modern canonists, though produced by them for a very different purpofe from that for which our layman pro- duced them. To facilitate the execution of this favorite fcheme, and, as it has fince ap- peared, to induce the legiflature to interfere in the alteration of our church government and difcipline, by "infilling on our bifhops ° dropping their confecration oath, and even "making this a condition of the toleration " to be granted*,'* which toleration we were then in expectation of, he took infinite pains to prove that our prefent ecclefiaftical fupe-. riors had " fworn fealty to a foreign prelatet," edition,/, 23. in which he gives us to underftand, that he never before heard of a fmgle fuffrage of the London Clergy in favour of any other perfon than the gentleman alluded to. He has alfo in his errata withdrawn that other falfe affertion concerning the catholic laity, namely that their opinion was collected on this bufinefs : but in withdrawing the error he has at the fame time deftroyed the fenfc of the paffage. * Further Confederations, pages 81, 82. + ibid, p, 25. that [ 6 ] that the allegiance here fpokenofis of a " temporal nature*," and *' perfectly incom- " patible with the duty which bifhops owe to "the church, and with the allegiance which " they owe to the government of their coun- " try+." This democratic and fchifmatical publ. cation, being intended to produce an important practical effect upon the clergy, was not left to the cafual channel of circula- tion by fale, but, like other works of the fame fpirit in politics, was gratuitoufly diftributed amongft thofe gentlemen to whom it was ad- dretled. The fuccefs however of this crude eflay of lay theology, upon men who had fpent years in the attainment of this fcience, was far from being anfwerable to the writer's expectations. For though a few, either from ignorance or lets excufable caufes, muttered their approbation of this felf-taught divine's production, infinitely the greater part of them expretred their indignant furprize at the open attempt that was made to feparate them from the faith and communion of the church, and in the thort fpace of a month or two, four fe-. veral confutations of the layman's addrefs were publiihed by different clergymen. It would [ 7 3 would take up too much time, and perhaps confufe the fubjecl, to review each of thefe anfwers. 1 (hall therefore content myfelf with a few ftriclures on that which I may be fuppo- fed to know the mod of, and which has fince been followed up in a regular train of contro- verfy*. The publication, I havejuft mentioned, pointed out the dreadful confequenccs of fup- pofing that the mode which has hitherto been followed, in the appointment of our bifhops, is uncanonical, and that their authority at prefent, " is delegated by one who has no ,f pretentions to exercife fuch an act of pow- " ert :" as, in this cafe, it would follow that there was not an atom of lawful million or of valid jurifdi&ion in preaching the gofpel, and administering the facraments, in the whole, body of the Englifh catholic clergy J. It re- marked on the fchifm involved in the lay- man's propofal, by the tenor of which we were not only to have appointed our own bifhops, but alfo to have erecled diocefes for thefe bi- * The Clergyman* s Anfiuer to the Layman's Letter »n the appointment of bijbops. By the Rev. J*. M. July I , I -90. + The Layman's f.rjl Letter, Second edition, p. 22. £ The Clergyman s dnjhuer, p. 6. fliops t 8 J fhops to govern*. It (hewed, by many ftrik- ing inftances and teftimonies collected from different ages, that the difcipline of the an- cient church was not tha which the layman had reprefented it to be, and with regard to our own church, in particular, it proved that no onebifhop in this kingdom, from the days of St. Auguftine down to the prefent day, was ever elected or appointed in conformity with the three grand rules which our lay divine had difcovered, and reprefented as of equal force in ancient and in modern timest. It clearly fhewed the impoflibility of reducing the lay- man's fyftem to practice, if it were lawful, and its irrelevancy to our fituation, which is that of a million and not an eftablifhed church J. Finally it vindicated, by both intrinfic and ex- trinfic proofs, the bilhops confecration oath from the forced and malicious conftru&ions which the layman had put upon it§ ; and con- cluded with referring to the edifying and apof- tolical lives and conduct of thofe whom the head of the church has uniformly appointed * The Clergyman's Atifvoer, p. 6. + I bid. pages 12, 13. See alfo Layman V firjl letter, pages 1 4., 16. Second edition. \ Pages 13, 14, 1^5, 16, Wf. $ P, i 9j fcfr, to C 9 3 to be our fuperiors, in order to demonftrate how little reafon there was for us to com- plain, or to attempt innovations., and with a hint alfo of the danger to be apprehended from the fyftem in queftion, by the eftablifhed church no lefs than by our own*. In examin- ing the authortties on which the layman had grounded the main part of this fyftem, I ex- preffed my furprize that fo many of them fhould be found which clearly depofed againfl it. Jn fa6l there is not one of them all that proves the point which it is brought to prove, and the greater part of them are adduced by the moil learned canonifts in fupport of the oppofite fyftem to that which is maintained by our lay- mant. In return, the layman (ftarting however into a more dignified and menacing form at the touch of certain reproaches on the dif- guife he had aflumed, which were contained in the anfwer above quoted) put forth apamphletr of more than two hundred pages J, in which * Pages 24, 25, &c. + Pages 2, 3, 8,g, 10, &r. + A fecond Letter addrCffedto the catholic clergy of England •« the appointment of bijbops, in which the ehjeilions to the firjl letter are anfwered. By John Throckmorton, Efq. Nov. 17, 1790., C profe fling C »° 3 profefling on one hand, "to weigh the proofs " that had been advanced againft his former *' pofitions*," he never fo much as notices the mofl weighty amongft them, fuch, for example, as that which is drawn from the alledged in- competency of the Pope todelegate his power to our prefent ecclefiaftical fuperiors; and engag- ing.on the other, to *' forbear touching upon any " extraneous mattert," he has filled his book with vague abufe of the pallors of his church in their feveral degrees, and 'of the Englifh Catholics who lived in the two laft centuries, with vindications of the oaths of fupremacy, and of King James's oath of allegiance, and with a variety of other matter totally foreign to the queftion in debate. In what he faid upon the fubje£t of the appointment ofbifhops he purfued his former plan, in running over again every paflage he had produced in his former pamphlet, and increafing their number with as many more as came to his hand, in which any mention was made of the clergy and people having, in the early ages, taken a part in the appointment of bifhops ; but without inquiring from whence this privilege was de- rived, or examining of what precife weight • Ibid. /. 2. • Ibid. this [ u ] this concurrence was ; much lefs without prov- ing that the difcipline of the church, fifteen centuries ago, has force, at this {day, againft her prefent univerfal practice. It was not however our layman's bufinefs to throw light on the fubjeft of epifcopacy, had it been in his power, but rather to confufe it, and by vague and popular declamations, to ftimulate the clergy, without further inquiry, than as to the inclination of certain perfons of the laity, haftily to adopt his favorite meafuje, which would at once have torn us from the centre of unity, and from all the churches in commu- nion with it throughout the world. In this fecond letter he ventured a ftep further than he had done in his firft, and with the fame confidence, with which he had before cited the ancient fathers, as being favorable to his fyf- tem, he then ventured to boaft of the fupport of modern canonifts, as depofing againft the difcipline of the times in which they lived. He often brings forward the name of Fleury, as that of an ally : and ranging in the front of his battle " Cabaffutius, Van Efpen, De Marca, " Thomaffin, Natalis Alexander, Lanoy, Sar- " pi and Bingham," he exultingly exclaims, " With fuch auxiliaries it is not unpleafant C 2 tO [ 1* ] " to combat, and it is not eafy to be de- '* feated*. This appeal to the modern divines and ca- nonifts gave me pleafure, becaufe it contraft- ed the field of combat within narrower limits, and afforded the profpeft of a much fpeedier iffue to our combat. I had proved ttie lay- man's mifreprefentations of the fathers and councils, as far as the bounds of my former work gave me leave, and I had abundant ma- terials in readinefs (till more clearly and amply to demonftrate the fame, in the work I had then in hand. Still however I was fenfible of the difficulty of cutting off all means of efcape or fubterfuge to a fubtile and litigious con- troverting in difcuffing the teftimonies of an- cient authors, who only treated the fubjeft in debate incidentally, and who, writing before any controverfy had been moved concern- ing it, fometimes ufed words in an equi- vocal and undetermined fenfet: whereas the modern divines and canonifts of reputation treating, as they do, profejfedly the fubje6l in debate, analyzing it in a regular manner, de- fining the meaning of the feveral terms they • Appendix to the fecond letter, p. lxi« & pajfim. + See this proved from Thomaffin, p. 20. of Tbt Divine right vf Epijcopacj, make C '3 ] make ufe of, and quoting and difcufling every authority that can be collected relative to it, from the infancy of the church down to the prefent times, cannot fail of giving clear and pofitive evidence, both as to the ancient and the modern difcipline of the church, whenever, as in the prefent cafe, the parties are pledged to abide by it. I was therefore at the pains of making ample extracts from the fix firft of the abovementioned authors*: Lanoy's works I was not poffefiTed of; befides I knew him to be a writer who affe&ed Angularity on every fub- je6t, and who had been cenfured for fome of his opinions; with Sarpi and Bingham I had nothing to do, as they were not catholics. By the teftimony of thefe canonifts, and by the authorities which they produce, I de- monftratively fhewed that the interference of the clergy and people in the appointment of bifhops, was a mere privilege which the church conferred, enlarged, difpenfed with, and took away, or transferred into other hands as {he found convenient by her councils, by the or-, dinances of her chief paftor, and by her {land- ing practice, a fhort fyftematic hiftory of which changes I there laid down. Hence I fhewed that an ecciefiaftic, who was elected, * Hid. //. 22, 33, ©V. prefented C H 3 prefented, or nominated to a bifhopric, never had any more authority, in ecclefiaftical mat- ters, than he had before fuch formality patted; but that the inftant he was confirmed or infti- tuted, by due and valid ecclefiaftical autho- rity, to be the bifhop of any portion of the flock, he became pofTefTed of full ecclefiaftical jurifdiclion over the faid portion of the flock or diocefe, independantly of all election, or prefentationwhatfoever. Hence alfo I proved that the voices and interference of the clergy and people, of the cathedral chapters and of the different fovereigns, in the bufinefs of appointing bifhops, by whatever names fuch interference has been called, whether by that of choice, election, prefentation, or nomi- nation, has ever been, and is ftill barely tef. timonial and recommendatory, or, in other words, that the parties bore witnefs to the merits of the future bifhop, and requefted that he might, by due ecclefiaftical authority, be placed over them : I proved, I fay, that their voices and interference were nothing more than this, be- caufe, in faft, they could he nothing more: inafmuch as whatever elfe the bifhop elect was pofTefTed of, he derived from a divine commifiion, conferred upon him by thofe, who themfelves were poflefled of it, and who de- rived C >5 3 rived it, by a perpetual fucccflion, from the apodles and from Chrift. With refpeft to the prefmt difcipline of the church, concerning the principal iubjeft in debate, I proved, by the moft clear and unequivocal teflimonies of thefe learned canonifts, that the church ac- knowledges no authority but in the Pope alone for conferring epifcopal jurifdiclion, whether it be that this right has devolved to him from the councils and metropolitans, which at certain periods exercifed it, as cer- tain divines teach, or whether he has only refumed his original right, as others maintain, and as the learned Pius himfelf intimates in one of his late briefs *. Hence they unanU moufly teach us that the Pope alone, at pre- fent, inftitutes and appoints all the bilhops in the church, by the bulls which he addreffes to themt: on the receipt of which, and not be- * April 13, 1791. + The form by which all the bilhops in the church are now con6rmed befpeaks her belief in this particular, and may be feen in Van Efpen, p. 1. tit. 14. c. 4. " Auc r " toritate Dei omnipoteotis & B. Apoftolorurr. Petri & " Pauli ac noftra, Ecclefiam N de perfona N provide- •' mus ipfutnque illi in Epifcopum prseficimus & Pafto- " rem, curam & adminiftrationem ipfiuseidem in fpiri- " tualibus & tcmporalibus committende.*' fore, r «6 ] fore, they are competent to excrcife or dele- gate, as well before as after confecration, eve- ry part of epifcopal jurifdiQion. In fhort, I pointed out the exaft refcmblance that exifts between our Layman's fyftem, in all its lead- ing features, and that invented by certain un- chriftian laymen in a neighbouring kingdom, for the exprefs purpofe, as the Pope aflerts *, " of utterly deftroying in it the Catholic Re- ** ligion ;" and I demonstrated that by adopt- ing the Layman's propofal, we fhould have incurred the manifold guilt of fchifm ; id, In arrogating to ourfelves the right of choofing bifhops, without being veiled with the final- led authority from the church for this pur- pofe. 2dty, "In refilling the Pope's claim t/* acknowledged by general councils, of inter- fering in this bufinefs. 3dly, In attributing a jurifdi&ion to fuch democratic bifhops, fome of whom, in the Layman's fyftem, would have received no confirmation at all, and the reft none that was canonical or valid. And 4thly, In the unheard of attempt of a few miflion- aries and lay-perfons to erecl four regular diocefes in this kingdom, coextenfive with the prefent diftri&s. I fay nothing here of my an- * Ibid. + Lajman's 2 Let. /. 52. fwer t >l 3 fwerto the other parts of the Layman's fecorid pamphlet, except that it appears by his fubfe- quent ftyle of writing, and the reprifals he en- deavours to make, that what was then faid was not foreign to the purpofe. My antagonift being unable to defend the ground he had taken, and probably not hav- ing been aware at fetting out, either of the nature and confequences of his own fyftem, or of the indignation with which it would be generally received by that learned and zeal- ous body of men to whom it was addrefled, had now no other refource than to cry out that he was calumniated. This he accord- ingly did, in a third pamphlet which he after- ward publifhed*; in which, after complain- ing that "a fyftem has been dreffed up and ** attributed to him ; but fo transformed that " he could not difcover his own fentiments in " any part of it t ;" and after maintaining that he never either gave that authority to the voices of the clergy and people, or denied it to the confirmation of the bilhops, which had been afcribed to him, with a few vague and incon- * A Letter, &c. fecond edition, to iuhich are added further Confideratims on the fame Subjefi, £ffc. by Sir John Throckmorton , Bart. + Ibid. />. 41. D clufive [ « ] clufive ftriftjres on thefe fubjefts, accompa- nied with a repetition of all he had laid againft the Pope's claim to give inftitution, he haft- ened to his favorite topi's of vilifying and calumniating the prefent ecclefiaftical govern- ment, and the refpeclable and edifying perfo- nages who are at the head of it, and of raking in the afhes of our venerable and faint-like predecefTor?, whofe only fault, in his eyes, has been their zeal to tranfmit our holy religion untainted down to us, for matter which he can conjure into treafon and wickednefs. But to return to our main fubjeft, our Layman being confronted with his own boaft- ed auxiliaries, Fleury, Cabaffutius, Van Ef- pen, De Marca, Thomafiinus, Natalis Alex- ander, to whom I added the celebrated Bifhop of Meaux, now affefts to make light of the authority of thefe " modern canonifts," who, he informs us, "are of little confequence in " proving what the difcipline of the church " is in our fituation, and who all agree," he has the confidence to affert, " that for many " ages it was fuch as he reprefented it *.*• Before I proceed I cannot help making one or two remarks on this aukward attempt of • Ibid. /. 73. the C <9 ] the Layman to get rid of his own auxiliaries; for if thefe modern canonifts are of little weight, with refpefl to our foliation, why did he ollenta- tioufly appeal to them, and fo often refer the reader to them? For amongft other pafTages of his, to the fame efFeft, I have now under my eye the following. " If the reader wifhes " any further proof of the difcipline of the " church being fuch as I have reprefented it, " he may confult CabaJJ'utius, Not. Eccl. p. " 16, too, &Q, Van Efpen, Jus Eccl. v. 1. p. '" 82, & fcq. and Fleury Hiji. Eccl. pajfim V Behdes it is notorious that the Layman has no other pretext whatfoever for infilling on the change of our ecclefialtical government, except by reprefenting it as contrary to the general and aclual difcipline of the church, of which thefe canonifts are the avowed inter- preters. On the other hand, to judge, with what good faith the Layman could affert "that " all thefe modern canonifts agree that for *' many ages the difcipline of the church was * fuch as he has reprefented it," the reader is invited to turn back to the few extracts which the Clergyman has cholen amongft the thou- sands that prefented themlelves of equal force, * 1 Let. j>. 15. D 2 in C ■<• J in his notes on the Divine Right of Epifco- pacy, and to which the Layman actually al- ludes in the pafiage above quoted. There he will find a Fleury teaching that " the choice . 22. + Nullum jus ad rem. % F. i t tit. 13. c. 1. art. 8, 14 " chofen," [»] " chofen V I omit the other authorities to the fame purpofe which I there brought for- ward, but I cannot help adding in the notes, one which I overlooked from the author of whofe fupport the Layman more confident- ly boafts than that of any other canonift whom- soever t. I ftated * L. z. c. i. Difcip. Eccl. + " Quod attinet ad ele&kmes, antiquiflima fane, ** atque ab initio receptiflima eligendorura epifcoporum " forma haec fuit, ut omnes epifcopi provincial in unum ** convenientes, novum crearont ecelefias viduatze antiffe- ** tern, accedente flebit tefiimovio, & univerfi cleri, aut " majoris ejus partis, confcnfu, ut teftatur Cyprianus. ** Ep. 68, &c." Cabaffut. Netit. Concil. cap. Ixxxix. I have already contrafted Divine Right, pp. 40,41. the real do&rine of this learned canonift on fome leading points in debate with the Layman's bold appeals to his autho- rity. For example, the former teaches that " he who is *' chofen or nominated bifhop cannot exercife any fpi- " ritual jurifdiftion until be be confirmed by the Holy See, *' But as foon as he is inftituted and confirmed by the ** Pope, although he be not yet confecrated, he can per- '* form every thing that relates to jurifdi&ion," Cabajfut. Theor. & Prax. 1. 1. c, 7. § 7. See alfe I. 4. c. 1. § 10, ice. On the other hand, the Layman by way of clear- ing himfelf from the guilt of fchifm exclaims, *' Nothing " has been enforced by me refpefting the election of " bifhops which is not with equal or greater ftrefs en- " forced by Cabaffutius; yet he delivered thefe fenti- " ments C « 3 I ftatcd above that my antagonist, in his laft wcik, accufed me of having mifreprefent- ed and calumniated his fyftem, and I fincerely wifh he had proved his point, and reduced me to the neceffity of making my amende honorable to him in the face of the public, being con- vinced that my perfonal difgrace would hav« been richly repaid to the church, of which I am a minifter, by the advantage of his ortho- doxy being proved and eftablifhed. I fhould have been content even that, upon the clear proofs exhibited of the heterodoxy and fchif- malical nature of his fyftem, he had ftood forward and given any kind of an orthodox explanation of it. However forced and ill— reafoned this might have been, I mould not have taken advantage of it, but fliould have fincerely rejoiced at the loft fheep's being returned to the fold, and fhould have au- gured ample amends to the caufe of religion " ments when profeflbr of the canon law in the territo- " ries of the Pope. If there be that venom of fchifm, " which Mr. Milner thinks he perceives in my letter, " how came it that this author mould enjoy emoluments " from the Holy See ?" i Lei. pp. 29, 30. And again, " CabafTutius does not in any place infinuatc that the '* Pope has a right to the confirmation, much lefs to th« «« nomination of bifhops." Ibid. p. Ivu from C *3 ] from a right life of the advantages which pro- vidence has conferred upon this Gentleman, for all the fcandal and detriment to fouls, which a mifapplication of them has occafion- cd. But alas! like the innovators of former times, inftead of ftarting back with horror at the deformity and fatal confequences, which the analyfis of his fyftem exhibits, his only endeavour is how to hide them from the pub- lic view. Inftead of retracting any part of his fchifmatical fyftem, inftead of qualifying it, or fubmitting it to the judgment and deci- (ion of any tribunal in the church, or even of any body of divines, he repeats his call upon us to "dare to elect" regular bifhops for ourfelves, and thereby to erect fees for them to govern, to get fuch bifhops confirmed by the firft prelate that is willing to charge his conscience with fuch an impious mockery, and to acknowledge others without even the pretenfion of a confirmation, to deny the au- thority of our prefent paftors, and to refift that right, which the Pope exercifes in every part of the catholic church, of appointing its bifhops, to purfue every meafure which has plunged the French nation into fchifm, and to do all this upon the ftrength of his unau- thorized expoiition of church difciplinc. However, I u 3 However, as the Layman endeavours to cloak his fyftem, and to palm it upon us in difguife, the caufe of orthodoxy and unity requires that I mould prove my feveral aflertions by exhibiting it in its true light: for this pur- pofe it will be neceflary, after recapitulating what has been fhewn to be the true do£trine of the church, on the feveral heads in debate, to colleQ; the fcattered paifages in my adver- fary's writings upon each of them. By the help of this comparative view it will be eafy for the reader to decide, whether I am guilty of calumniating the layman's theology, or he of inculcating fchifm and herefy. In order to obtain clear and precife no- tions upon any complex fubje£t, as is this of epifcopacy, it is neceflary to analyze it, and examine it in its feveral parts. It is certain, then, to adopt the words of a celebrated canonift, that " God has con- " ferred a twofold power upon the prelates " of his church; that of order and that of " jurifditiion. The power of order relates to " the performing and adminiftering the facra^ " ments of the church. The power of jurif- M diction relates to decifions, either in the " inward tribunal of the foul, or in the out- ** ward tribunal, where queftions concerning ccclc- C *5 3 " ecclefiaftical perfons and things are deter- ff mined, both branches of which jurifdi&ion u the prelates of the church have receiv- " ed from God*." — Thefe two powers, as this canonift, in common with others, fhews, may, and frequently do exifl; apart. A bifhop may be validly confecrated and poffefs the full power of order, without pofleffing an atom of jurifdi&ion, as is the cafe with the fchifraa- tical bifhops in France. On the other hand, " a bifhop ele6t, who is appointed by the Pope *' to a certain diocefe, and confirmed by him, " though he be not yet confecrated, has the *' power of the exterior tribunal, which he t( can immediately exercife, in perfon, by " excommunicating, fufpending, interdicting, * c depofing, <&c. as likewife of the interior '* tribunal, which though he cannot exercife, " in perfon, if he be not a prieft, he can Mill {hops, I cannot help extracting a few paflages from th* rnoft learned and dirFufive canonift who has treated this fubjecl. They will afford us another opportunity of comparing our Layman's do&rine, in general, with that of one of his boafted auxiliaries. " Confulrius nihil fieri a nobis poteft quam ut nof. •* tras femper opiniones & voluntates, linguas, pennafque " aptemus ei. difciplinaE, quae in univerfali vie et ecclefia " eo aevo, quo nos fummi providentia numinis collocavit. •* Damnandae funt femper abufiones & corruptetse parti- " culares : at magni femper facienda eft univerfalis dif- '* cip'ina moribus catholicse ecclefise confirmata." Tho- majjinus, p. i. I. I. c. 48. ** Si id fibi quifque fumat, non ut faeculi fui legibus " moribufque vivat, fed quibus volet prifccrum faeculo- M rum, aftum eft de pace publica. Ke ea quidem, qu.s '* Deus olim ipfe fub priori lege praeceperat, innovari fas F eft, t 34 ] We proceed now briefly to inquire what is the nature and the effecis of the interfe- rence of the bifhop or bifhops who take part in the appointment of other bifhops, inde- pendently of the a£t of confecration. On this head it has been demonftratively proved, that whatever authority a prelate is polTetTed of, for governing his flock (which authority he en- joys in as full an extent before confirmation as afterwards) he poiTeiles by means of that divine commiffion he receives from his own order,, called confirmation, injlilution, mijfion or ■pr.ovifion* . "As heretofore he, who was elecl- " ed by the clergy and people, or nominated " by the king, was not confidered as the paf- " tor or bifhop of the vacant church, before ** he was confirmed by the metropolitan " and provincial bifhops, and was ordained " the paftor and bifhop of fuch church ; fo " neither, by the prefent canon law, can they, " who are elected by the cathedral chapters " or nominated by the kings, take any part " eft, poftquam legitima auftoritate antiquata funt. Aa. " impune quis volet reducere canones antiquos recentio- " rum conciliorum ftatutis obduftos i" Ibid. I. 3. c. 47. '* Infanire illud non fapere eft, conciliorum genera- " lium fapientiam fux pjft-haberc, pietatem, religio- «• nem." J bid. I. 1. c. 4. * See Divine Right, p. 38. W fej . " what- C 35 I " whatfoever, in the temporal or fpiritual ad- " miniftration of the church, before their " confirmation is expedited ..... It is then " by means of confirmation, or of the papal " provifion, that a perfon is conftituted a " true pallor and bifhop, and that he becomes " competent to exercife the whole paftoral " charge, in quality of bifhop and ordinary ct paftor, as the canonifts teach with one " voice." Thus argues an auxiliary of the Layman*. Several inflances have been al- ledged, in which, by the common law, the ce- remony of election was fet afide at the very times when the ufe of it was moft prevalent t, but never could there be a lawful bifhop with- out confirmation; the former was accidental and of human inflitution, the latter efiential and of right divine. This is fo far certain, and an article of faith that the council of Trent has pronounced an anathema againft. thofe who deny, that befides lawful ordina- tion, a canonical and legal miffion is alfo ne- ceflaryj. * Van Efpen, p. r. tit. 14. c. 5. f D. R. /. 27'. 5sf feq. \ *• Si quis dixerit epifcopos qui nee ab ec- «« clefiaftica & canonica poteftate rite ordinati ate mijfi •* junty fed aliunde . hiiif Ivix* Thus C 37 ] Thus is the teftimony of a holy Pope and doctor of the church brought in by the Lay.* man and his friend Sarpi, in plain contradic- tion to the doctrinal definition of a general council *. It can be upon no other ground than a pretended divine and indefeafible right of election in the clergy and people at large, that the layman roundly aflerts that " the *' elections by chapters" which we have feea above, were fanftioned and ordained by the general council of Lateran, " have been er- roneoufly fliled canonicalt." But not to tie the layman down to the Uriel confequences of whatever he has advanced, I think if any point can be certainly gathered from his fyftem, it is that the proper right of appointing their bifhops is veiled in the people, and that epifcopal confirmation is nothing elfe but the ac~l itfelf of confecrationj. We ob- ferve that he every where makes the votes of -the people to be judicial and even effective in oppofuion * Concil. Tnd. $ejf. 23. can. 7. quoted below. + Ibid. p. 77. j This is further confirmed by the circumftance of the "French fchifmatics fyftem being the fame in this refpeel, which fyftem our author purfues in almoft every other particular. The very doftrine of Mirabeau, Camus and the t 38 ] oppfition to teflimonial. " Bingham proves " that the conjunctive power of the clergy •• and people was not barely teflimonial, but a •• judicial and effective power*." " Natalis A- •• lexander allows .... that the right of elec- 1 tion was entirely vefted in the clergy and " peoplef ." In conformity with the title of his publications, which are concerning the appointment of bifliops, he gives us plainly to underttand that it is the part of the clergy and laity to appoint them and to conflitute them* ,c Although we be thus left at liberty by the " civil power, it does not follow that we have " no rule, whereby we are to be directed in the- " appointment of our bifhops Next to the " being deprived of paftors the greateft evil " would be the having no fettled mode of the other authors of the fchifm is, that each bifhop re- ceives by consecration unbounded jurifdiction. See Opi- nion de V Abbe Maury. The fame was alfo the language of the fchifmaticks of the lad century, and was condemned in them. " Jurif- «' didtion and miflion," fays Mark Antony de Dominis, " are nothing elfe but ordination itfelf." De Rep. 1. 5. c. 3. Richer fays, •' The popular elections are of divine '« right, therefore it is finful in kings to appoint bifhops, •* becaufe all power is from the people." * 2 Let. p. vi. f Ibid. J>. v. " conflicting C 39 1 " con/Hinting them*." " It is in your powor " (the inferior clergy) to remove the obje&iort " of a want of proper pallors You will " transform them (the vicars apoftolic) into "Englifhbifhopsf." It is true the layman in his laft work, find- ing it neceffary to cloak and palliate a fyftem, which be is unable to defend and unwilling to abandon, tells us that he " always aflerted that u the election of the people was fubjett to the c< judgment of the bifhopsj." But I afk where does this or any fuch like affertion occur in his declamatory addrefs to the clergy ? Does it form part of his famous three rules§, where, in faft, there is not a hint of any judgment to be exercifed by the bilhops, but only of their concurring in the election, which he reprefents lis already made, and of their ordaining the jierfon fo choftn? Or is it to be met with in the application of thofe rules, where he in- ftrufts the midland and weftern clergy how