Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1814.]

on the subject of Reflections on Water:

into which I assuredly thought the con-
troversy was fallen.
When I first read
his letter of October 1806, sneeringly
endeavouring to controvert my hypothe-
sis, I wondered who and what he could
be that could attack me in so uncandid a
manner; for an air of sarcasm runs
through his whole paper.
That he was

a scientific man I had no doubt, for his
catoptrical remarks had great merit, if
they had been given with candour. I
certainly thought myself entitled to bet-
ter treatment, as what I offered with the
best intention was, at least, an amuse-
ment to the picturesque observer, if it
could be rendered of no
use; and
therefore ought not to have been made
a subject of derision, however deficient
in mathematical precision. I have
beretofore shown that Mr. S. himself
is not infallible; for he asserted that
the situation of the eye is not material in
reflections, when every one must be con-
vinced it is the only essential point. As
he has thought it proper to revive the
controversy after so many years have
elapsed, I will now endeavour to return
the compliment he paid to me; and in
the first place will say that his shift-
ing the scene from another Magazine
to your miscellany, in the seemingly
undermining manner he has done, with
out even hinting at my second paper,
wherein I have cleared away all the am-
biguities of my first, must be reprobated
by every candid mind. If he had any
thing further to say, why did he not an-
swer my second paper, and fight the bat
tle out at the time? The answer is ob-
vious because he could not. I freely
confess there are some things unguarded-
ly said in my first paper, and which I
now regret; but they are trifles, and no
way derogatory to the principal aim of that
paper, namely, to assert that the eye is
the certain and only vanishing point of
reflections, and which I still maintain.
Though I have great deference for mathe
matical disquisitions as far as I understand
them, yet I am convinced they cannot do
away the common sense he speaks of; and
what I have said on the subject in my
second paper is so much in point, that
Mr. S. will have hard work to overthrow
it. I shall not offend the tender con-
science of Mr. S. by endeavouring to
force his faith to accept what must be
obvious to every picturesque observer
that is not wilfully blind; who has seen,
or may wish to see, the controversy be-
tween us, Audi alteram partem. (Vide
Gentleman's Magazine for August, Octo.

303

ber, and November, 1806.) Whoever troubles himself to do this will find that after having demonstrated that the eye is the certain and only vanishing point of reflections, beyond the possibility of a doubt of its truth, my argument goes to prove that where two or more objects in a picture are reflected perpendicularly,. they are out of nature; because they do not both, or all, tend to the eye, fixed in a certain point; and that the eye must be fixed in a certain point in viewing a picture, no one of any scientific taste, I presume, will deny; for if it is moved ever so little from the original point it makes a new picture; and for the truth of this I appeal to the members of the Royal Academy. But having in my second paper observed that most of the objects of nature are seen in two planes; if two or more objects are reflected as tending or inclining to the eye, they are equally out of nature, because the rays of incidence and reflection are not in the same plane. And therefore it follows of course that there never was a true representation of the reflections of two or more objects in a picture; because a picture must ever consist of one plane only. Of the two therefore, seeing both are out of na ture-for if one has not the perpendicular, the other has not the inclination-perhaps the latter ought, in strictness, to be preferred; because reflections are always so seen on the water, and the ray of incidence is not so very perceptible; but custom has established the former. I have said that I set reflections on water in the first class of the picturesque beauties of nature, and I hope Mr. S. will not pretend to controvert that. Let us now see what he wants to know, that he might not have gathered from my second paper, which he seems assiduously to keep in the dark. He says, "I am particularly desirous of seeing the reflections on water (as far as regards particular objects) the picture and the vanishing point, fully elucidated by some of your mathematical correspondents; for I must confess my faith is not sufficient to subscribe to the opinions of this artist, while they are at variance with science, common sense, and every day's observation." Very well, Mr. Squire! And I also should be glad to see what a mathematical man may make of them; and further to see Mr. Squire's definition of the terms, science, common sense, and every day's observation: for if they are not all of them fully elucidated in my second paper, which he seems studiously to avoid noticing, I con2 R2

fesa

[blocks in formation]

THE

HE late minister, Mr. Pitt, with the view of satisfying not his own doubts, but those of many respectable persons, conceived the happy idea of applying, A.D. 1788, to six of the most celebrated foreign Catholic Universities, Louvaine, Douay, Alcala, Salamanca, Valladolid, and the Sorbonne, for the purpose of solving the following questions: 1. Has the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever within the realm of England? 2. Can the Pope or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext what soever?

3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions either of a public or private nature?

To the above queries it is well known that these learned bodies answered, not merely by a decided, but indignant negative:* and to the answers thus returned, the Irish Catholic Prelates in a Synod, held November 1812, formally

*The University of Salamanca observes, that Christ invariably denied that he had received any temporal power; declaring that his kingdom was not of this world. And they argue, that no other power than that which Christ himself possessed, could be given by him to St. Peter, or vested in the universal church." To the same purpose, a learned and most respectable Catholic divine, in an excellent Tract published some years since, entitled, Enquiry into the Moral and Political Tendency of the Religion stiled Roman Catholic,' says, "The author of christianity neither exercised himself, nor imparted to his followers any degree of earthly dominion. The Apostle, therefore, from whom the Bishops of Rome claim their supremacy,

[ocr errors]

expressed their high and unreserved ap. probation.

In the year 1791, the Catholic bishops of Ireland requested from the See of Rome, an authentic explanation of certain words in the pontifical oath which had been industriously perverted as giving countenance to persecution. The congregation of Cardinals de Propaganda being convened, not only did the official document transmitted upon this ocea sion, and sanctioned by the then Pope Pius VI. disclaim the obnoxious meaning attached to the words, "hæreticos persequar et impugnabo," but it allowed the words themselves to be in future omitted: moreover, reprobating in authoritative and pointed language the detestable maxims, "that faith is not to be kept with the heterodox; that an oath to Kings separated from the Catholic communion can be violated; or that it is lawful for the Bishop of Rome to invade their temporal rights and dominions."

In the Class-book used in the Catho ic College of Maynooth, it is expressly stated, "that subjects cannot be ab solved from their allegiance to their respective sovereigns by any power or ju risdiction granted by Christ to the Pope, or church; acknowledging, nevertheless, the high pretensions of the Papal See during the dark ages, and accounting for the occasional acquiescence of Kings and Princes in these claims, from the necessity they were often under of courting the aid of the Roman Pontiffs. In fine, the oath imposed on Catholics by the 18th of George III. which disavows all temporal power and jurisdiction on the part of the Pope, has been taken with an emulation of loyalty throughout the kingdom. Strange, however, as it may seem, some there still are who, in defiance of this phalanx of authorities, hesitate not to brand the Catholics as incapacitated by their religious principles, from giving satisfactory proof of their allegiance to the government; and the reasons assigned in justification of the perpetual exclusion of this large portion of the

having received from his master nothing more than spiritual jurisdiction, these cannot pretend to inherit, from their apostolical predecessor, those powers which he never possessed." This is justly regarded by all Catholics of the present age, as a decisive argument against the temporal authority of the Papal See, in opposition to the antiquated and exploded claims of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

community

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Remarks on Catholic Emancipation.

1814.] Community from the pale of the constitution, are substantially as follow:

1. Because about six hundred years ago, the Fourth Council of Lateran published a false and wicked canon, authorizing the deposition by the Pope of all heretical princes.

2. Because, at a still more recent period, four centuries only distant, the Council of Constance passed an impious and detestable decree-that faith was not to be kept with heretics.

To these charges of political and polemical malevolence, the liberal of both communions thus reply:-The Fourth Council of Lateran was convened at a period of the deepest mental darkness, by one of the most ambitious Pontiffs that ever filled the Papal chair, Innocent III. And it is true, that by the third canon of this council, the deposing power of the Pope was affirmed. But it is equally true, that this famous canon was rejected by every state in Europe, in the very zenith of the Papal authority. A radical distinction has always been made by the ecclesiastical jurists between canons of doctrinal decision, and such as relate to matters of discipline and government, which require the formal acceptation of national churches and states to give them validity; and it is allowed that the two first canons only of this council are of the former description. "Non docent Catholici," says the great Bossuet," que cunque gesta sunt in conciliis, ea ad ecclesiæ fidem pertinere-Multa sunt decreta que non pertinent ad invariabilem fidei regulam-sed sunt accommodata temporibus atque negotiis." Doubtless some individual Pontiffs, as Gre gory VII. Innocent III. and Boniface VIII., not merely asserted in the abstract, but attempted to realize this monstrous pretension; and some scholastic easuists, obsequiously attached to the court of Rome, have daringly defended them; but the Roman Catholic church, as such, is no more responsible for the pernicious maxims of Aquinas, or Bellarmine, than the church of Scotland for the fanaticism of Knox, or that of England for the barbarities of Laud. Without question, the Catholics have largely par ticipated in the general illumination of the times in which we live, but these maxims were resolutely opposed even in the most benighted ages. The persevering resistance of the Emperors of the House of Swabia to the Papal claims, fills many interesting pages of history which also records the more successful conflicts of the Gallic monarchs, and the final

305

triumph of Philip Le Bel over Boniface VIII. who in terms of unparalleled arrogance had, in a letter addressed to the King, in an early stage of that memorable quarrel (A.D. 1301,) said, “We give you to know that you are our subject both in spirituals and temporals." To which Philip replied, "We give your foolship to know, Sciat fatuitas vestra, that in temporals we are subject to no person."

A peremptory requisition from the same Pontiff, so conspicuous in history, to our own renowned Edward I, to desist from his expedition against Scotland, which the Pope affirmed to be a fief of the church, was referred by the King to the Barons, who, with true baronial spirit, thus replied:" Our Lord the King shall not plead before you, nor submit to any trial or enquiry, or send any mes sengers to your court, especially as such proceedings would be in manifest disinherison of the rights of the crown of England, and the prejudice of the liberties, customs, and laws, which we have inherited from our fathers, and with the assistance of God will defend." The English statutes of Provisors and Pramunire, evince how undauntedly these rights were defended by the same watchful guardians against papal encroachments; and how vast is the interval between a recognition of spiritual authority, and a transfer of civil allegiance,

Louis IX. of France, stiled St. Louis, who flourished in the same century, was deeply imbued with all the superstitions of the age in which he lived; but he was a great man and a great monarch, and he it was who first promulgated (A.D. 1268) that famous pragmatic sanction which established on a basis, never to be shaken, the liberties of the Gallican church.

The council of Constance, convened at the commencement of the fifteenth century, expressly decreed, "that Kings and Princes, by God's ordinance, are not subject in temporals to any ecclesiastical powers; neither can their subjects be freed from fealty and obedience;" and this was confirmed by the subsequent

council of Basil.

Towards the close of that century, the pragmatic sanction of St. Louis, which seemed from the lapse of time somewhat obsolete, was revived and enforced by Louis XII., a náme still held in the highest veneration. "The Gallican church," says the learned Jortin, speaking of this transaction, "adhering to the decrees of the councils of Constance and

Basil, suffered not the Pontiffs to proceed beyond the bounds fixed by those fathers."

The barbarous bigotry of Louis XIV. stands recorded in characters of blood. Yet under the authority of this royal persecutor, was convened, A.D. 1682, that national synod, whence issued the celebrated declaration, drawn by the pen of Bossuet; and containing a summary of the liberties of the Gallican, and virtually of all other national churches. The first article, registered in the several parliaments and universities of the kingdom, pronounces, "that the power which Jesus Christ has given to St. Peter and his successors, vicars of Christ, relates only to spiritual things, and those which concern salvation, and not to things civil and temporal: so that in temporals, Kings and Princes are not subject to the ecclesiastical power, and cannot directly or indirectly be deposed by the power of the keys; or their subjects discharged by it from the obedience which they owe to their sovereigns, or from their oaths of allegiance." Throughout the whole extent of Catholic christendom, this principle is received as indubitable.

The fourth council of Lateran, by the concurrent testimonies of history, was held in abject subjection by the Pope. M. Paris informs us, that Innocent having caused seventy articles to be read before the council, commanded the fathers to receive them without entering into any examination. Dupin remarks, that the authority of divers canons passed in this council has been much questioned. Innocent is accused by Platina of having produced decrees in the council which were never ratified; and the candid Fleury observes, "that this Pope, by extending his authority beyond its just limits, made it odious. Let us not (says he) pretend to justify excesses of which we see both the causes and wretched effects." The power of the Papacy was now at the height, Kings and Councils were equally contemned by the Roman Pontiffs. But from the era of the exile and death of Boniface VIII., the tide of public opinion began to turn; and the council of Constance, sa formidable to the Holy See, and so hostile to its pretensions, avenged the quarrel of the council of Lateran.

Driven by the irresistible evidence of facts from this post, the enemies of the Catholics entrench themselves in another position, viz. that the council of Constance maintained as a general

[graphic]

maxim, "that faith was not to be kept with beretics:" and they insinuate that it still remains a tenet of the Catholic church, that oaths and promises so taken are not binding upon the consciencc.

Why then do not the Catholics take every oath which the exhaustless inge nuity of suspicion can devise? Either they are at present excluded by these legal precautions from the full partici pation of the Constitution, or they are not. If they are not, we concede nothing by acceding to the Catholic claims; if they are, the imputation is a gross and groundless calumny, and the refu tation may be thought superfluous of a charge, which even those who make it cannot believe; but truth requires the statement of the historical fact.

Unquestionably the violation of the safe-conduct granted by the Emperor Sigismond, to the renowned confessor, John Huss, will remain to future ages an indelible stigma on the name of the Council of Constance. But even in this extraordinary instance, that assembly, far from acting upon any general rule that faith was not to be kept with heretics, merely contended that the Emperor, having exceeded the limits of his province in granting a safe-conduct to a person charged with heresy, and summoned before the council, it was in its own nature null and void. And in their nineteenth session, the famous decree passed, "That though a protection were granted by the Emperor to heretics, such grant ought not to be deemed a reason why the Ecclesiastical Court should not take cognizance of their opinions, and punish them if they appeared to persist in them. And because, by granting safe. conducts, the Prince might impede the course of canonical proceedings, he shall not be held by any promise made to screen heretical convicts from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. And the Prince, from whom the safe-conduct had been obtained, having dune all he could on his part to observe his engagement, was under no farther obligation." The council, therefore, as an abstract truth, ac knowledged that faith ought to be kept with heretics; and that the Emperor having pledged his faith, was personally bound to maintain it inviolate; but the council not being a party to the engage. ment, disclaimed all participation in the obligation. Had the safe-conduct been granted with the concurrence of that assembly, thirsting as it appears to have done for innocent blood, its validity would not have been impeached.

[graphic]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »