are printed as they have been cited by me. The dif ference, however, in the words, will make no difference in the reasoning: and, as far as I can judge, the reading which I have followed, is the better: as it is more intelligible, is conformable to that of the canon, and is perfectly accordant with the jurisprudence of the age. Before I leave this subject, I may observe, that a decree of the council of Trent, quoted by Dr. Marsh, will, perhaps, throw some light upon it. It is the nineteenth of the twenty-fifth session, and was made against those who assigned places in their domains for public duels, not those who merely "suffered duelling," as Dr. Marsh represents it: qui locum ad monomachiam in terris suis inter Christianos concesserint. It deprives them of their jurisdiction and domain in that place, if they hold it of the church, "quod ab ecclesia obtinent:" and adds, "si feudalia sint, directis dominis statim acquirentur." From this distinction, it is not improbable that those, who in the canon of the Lateran council are described as not having principal lords, were those who held their lands immediately of the church. Much of the remainder of Dr. Marsh's reasoning, in this chapter, is novel and interesting. 1st. He denies that there is any distinction between the obligation of canons relating to discipline, and the obligation of canons relating to doctrines: and asserts, that the Irish Catholic clergy, on their appointment to benefices, swear to the observance of both. This is rather extraordinary since, it is a well-known fact, that in five of the Irish dioceses, and the wardinate of Galway, the discipline of the council of Trent has never been received. Are the clergy of these dioceses to be considered as perjured? But on what does Dr. Marsh found his opinion? On these words of their oath. Cætera item omnia a sacris canonibus, et œcumenicis conciliis, ac præcipue a sacrosancta tridentina synodo tradita, definita, et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor. But here is not one word regarding discipline. The words tradita, definita, declarata, are so many technical terms, if I may so call them, re garding doctrine. The instrument itself is a profession of the Catholic doctrine, professio fidei, and in the very sentence immediately following the passage quoted by Dr. Marsh, it is called hanc veram catholicam fidem Dr. Marsh's next discovery is still more extraordinary. "There cannot be a doubt," he tells us, "that ordine," (in the clause, salvo meo ordine, inserted in the oath taken by Catholic bishops) means, "ordine monastico." In taking an oath of obedience to the pope, "It was deemed necessary to stipulate, that such obedience (for it seldom happened that a man was consecrated bishop, who had not previously belonged to some monastic order), should not prejudice the privileges of his own order." (p. 236, note.) It will certainly excite a smile in Catholic prelates, who never belonged to any monastic institute, to be told that they have upon oath professed themselves monks. But the mistake may be excused in a writer, who is not acquainted with the peculiar language of Catholics. When a bishop speaks of his own order, he understands his order in the hierarchy-the episcopal order: and the words, salvo meo ordine, means, saving what becomes the character and rights of a christian bishop. No one ever pretended, as Dr. Marsh supposes, that this clause was lately "inserted, for the purpose of saving allegiance to the kings of England. It is probably as ancient as the oath itself: but it shows that the bishop is bound by his oath to nothing repugnant to the episcopal character, and consequently to nothing inconsistent with his allegiance.* But the most amusing of all these discoveries, is, the creation of an independent "popedom" in Russia, "by a master-piece of policy in the Empress Catharine." (p. 245, 249.) Let Dr. Marsh, however, revert to the sources from which he derived his information, and he will then learn, what he seems to have * Will Dr. Marsh condescend to review what he has written, p. 210, and say, whether he has not, inadvertently, attributed to the expressions of the Irish archbishops, a meaning most foreign from that which those expressions naturally convey? overlooked, that the courts of Petersburgh and Rome, understood each other in this transaction: that the Russian government has an agent at Rome for the expedition of ecclesiastical business: that if the Empress erected Mohilow into an archiepiscopal see, on her side, the pope erected it into one also on his that if she named Stanislaus Tsches Tschersovich to that dignity, the pope gave him the usual faculties of institution: that the Nuncio Archetti invested him with the pallium, and that he took the usual oath of obedience to the pope, in the presence, and with the approbation of the empress. Yes: this very Russian pope swore that obedience to the Roman pope, which Dr. Marsh declares cannot be done but "at expense of fealty to the sovereign;" and swore it too before the whole Russian court, and with the approbation of that princess, who, as Dr. Marsh also informs us, "was one of the most profound politicians that ever sat upon a throne !!" |