We now assure the writer who has, we should hope unintentionally, but grossly, misrepresented our religion, and we assure him in sincerity, in the words of a Secretary to the Catholic Board of Ireland, in his letter to a Protestant historian who misrepresented the acts of that body at the very time of their session, "although we profess the Roman Catholic religion, we would not be of that communion one single hour, were its tenets such as they are represented through that baneful prejudice so prevalent in Great Britain and Ireland, which proves such an effectual drawback to the otherwise inevitable prosperity of the country. And we cannot sufficiently lament seeing unfounded calumnies so industriously circulated, as they only tend to keep alive prejudices which all liberal men reprobate as pestiferous to society." cern. thing with us in the examination which we have made. We have read and studied the tenets of those who have separated from that church, because from her every other Christian sect has mediately or immediately departed. We have weighed the alleged reasons for their separation. We have not taken their tenets, their reasons, their allegations from their adversaries, but from themselves: and thus we have made our decision. We respect the judgment of those who think differently from us. We freely concede to them, as we firmly demand for ourselves, the right to form the important decision in the choice of religious observance, with a solemn and awful responsibility to God alone. But whilst we shall have the opportunity of correcting the mistakes of our friends, or the misrepresentation of our enemies, we shall do so with calm and undeviating perseverance, not by empty assertion, but by historical inquiry and the exhibition of facts. We feel religion to be an important conWe are convinced that no accident of birth or of education, that no antiquity or respectability of a church, can be a war- At present we close our task; it remains rant for our rejecting the truth. We have with our fellow-Catholics to determine been born of Roman Catholic parents, edu- whether we shall resume it. Should no cated in the Roman Catholic religion. We opportunity be afforded us, we must rest find it to be venerable for its antiquity, the patiently content, to witness, as we have religion of the most enlightened nations, of long done in silence, our religion reviled, the greatest empires, of the most powerful and our tenets misrepresented, to a people monarchs, of the most learned men, of the who are anxious for the discovery of truth, wisest statesmen, and most enlightened but who are amused with fabricationsphilosophers, during a long succession of to a people who condemn us because they ages. All those circumstances weigh no- do not know us. ON THE ORIGIN OF ECCLESIASTICAL PRIVILEGES IN ENGLAND. [This Essay upon the legal question of the origin and nature of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in temporal affairs, and of the rights and immunities of ecclesiastical persons, as these existed under the ancient laws of England, was occasioned by an accidental circumstance, foreign to their immediate subject. A writer in the Boston Patriot," it appears, made some remarks in that paper on the Royal Supremacy in the Church of England. These remarks, being copied into the Miscellany, met the eye of some zealous Episcopalian, who replied to the Protestant antagonist of his church by an attack on the See of Rome. In this he attempted to prove, that the crown of England, in taking to itself spiritual jurisdiction and supremacy, had simply resumed an authority over ecclesiastical persons and property in their civil relation, which the Pope had previously exercised unjustly, and by usurpation. To ward off the side-blow thus given, Bishop England wrote the following pieces, in which he commences giving the legal and historical proof of the fact, that the rights and privileges in question were part and parcel of the English Constitution. The original question, respecting the Koyal Supremacy in the Church of England, is satisfactorily handled in a succinct manner in the first part of the essay; which was, unfortunately, left in an unfinished state. It is taken from the United States Catholic Miscellany," Vol. VII., for 1827.] SECTION I. A SUBSCRIBER to the Miscellany in Savannah has sent to us the Georgian newspaper, published in that city on the 7th inst., and drawn our attention to an article which it contains. This article purports to be a letter from "A Subscriber" to the editor of the Georgian, and the subscriber to the Miscellany calls for our notice of this article. We always feel obliged to those friends who transmit to us those articles which they think it becomes our duty, as editors of a Catholic paper, to notice; but we must also reserve to ourselves the full and unqualified right of exercising our own judgment upon the propriety or necessity of adverting to the articles thus sent. We do think it properly our duty to correct the errors of the correspondent of the Georgian. His letter commences with the following paragraph: "To the Editor of the Georgian. "Sir:-In your paper of Tuesday last, I observe an article copied from the Boston Patriot, containing some very unfair and erroneous statements in relation to the established Church of England and Ireland. Unfair and erroneous statements can be made within a much smaller compass of words that will serve to correct and refute them. All I can hope, therefore, in relation to that article is, that you will indulge me in the publication of a few remarks upon some of the points which are most calculated to mis. lead the uninformed." The principle is then admitted, that if unfair or erroneous statements are made by a publisher, he ought to afford an opportunity for their correction. May we indulge the hope that the editor of the Georgian will, therefore, copy our remarks upon this letter? The last paragraph of the letter is the following: "After all, it may be inquired why any one in this country should evince so much interest in the vindication and defence of the Church of England; my answer is simply this. Besides my wish to see justice equally awarded to all,there exists in this country a church nearly related to the Church of England, in its doctrines and mode of worship. Though these churches have no political connexion, yet they are frequently identified in character; and consequently every blow which, in this country, is aimed at the Church of England, falls more heavily upon her relative on this side of the Atlantic than upon herself. In this near relative of the Church of England, I do not hesitate to declare, I feel a deep and honest interest. To preserve unsullied the character of this offspring of that venerable establishment so unwarrantably assailed by the article to which I have attempted a reply, is my principle object in the remarks which I have here hastily thrown together. By giving to them the same publicity which you gave to the article from the Boston Patriot, you will oblige a SUBSCRIBER." Now, it is pretty obvious that the article of the Boston Patriot was not written by a Roman Catholic, nor intended to subserve the Roman Catholic religion. We have no recollection of the article, but we believe it will be admitted that it was not an attack by Catholics upon the Church of England, nor upon her near relative or dear daughter the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, which we freely acknowledge has no political connexion with the Church of England: of course, if the Puritan of New England "unwarrantably assailed the character of this offspring of that venerable establishment," one would imagine that the retort should be against that Puritan, and not against the Roman Catholic Church. Is it "according equal justice to all," to assail those who, to say the least, were quiescent? But let us see the correction and defence,-it proceeds thus: My first remarks are designed to explain and correct that writer's statement, respecting the constitution and officers of the Church of Eng. land and Ireland. He states that the King is considered the Head of the Church." In a certain sense this is true, but in order rightly to understand the sense in which this assertion is to be admitted, a reference to some well-known historical facts will be necessary. "Before the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, the Pope or Bishop of Rome had asfrom the civil jurisdiction of the kingdom all sumed and exercised the power of exempting clergymen, ecclesiastics, and dependents upon the Church, residing in England; over all these the Pope, as head of the church, exercised juris diction, by courts established under his authority in the kingdom. To such an extent had the jealousy of this pretended right advanced, that to be amenable to the civil authority, even for he would not allow a clergyman or ecclesiastic the blackest and most notorious of crimes. In the reformation of the church, this power of the Pope was resisted, and thrown off; and the king was declared to be the head of the church, in such a sense, that clergymen, as well as laymen, should be subject to his authority, or in other words, should be amenable for their crimes and misdemeanors to the civil tribunals of the kingdom. This is the true meaning of head of the church, as applied to the King of England. "It is true the king assumed and has constantly exercised some other powers, which, before the Reformation, had been exercised by the Pope, such as the nomination of individuals to fill bishoprics becoming vacant by death or otherwise. But, though he nominates to those offices, he has not, nor did he ever pretend to have, authority to ordain or consecrate to the spiritual offices for which he nominates. It would be considered sacrilege by that very church of which he is called the head, for the king to exercise the spiritual functions of its ministers." A writer who complains of unfair treatment ought not to be himself dishonest aud uncandid; nor ought a writer who undertakes to correct the errors of others be himself a personification of gross ignorance. We know not who is the correspondent of the Georgian; but we assert, that if he believes his own statement of "historical facts" to be true, he is grossly deluded,—or if he is correctly informed, he is extremely dishonest. 1. It is untrue, that, in the sixteenth cen tury, the Pope or Bishop of Rome had as- | Europe, but this last was by concession, sumed or exercised the power of exempt- not as a consequence of his spiritual heading any person who was a subject of the ship: so, too, he was frequently and indeed King of England from the civil jurisdiction generally admitted as the arbiter between of the king or kingdom. the contending parties, as to the true meaning and spirit of their written contracts: his tribunal formed a sort of chancery for the feudal body; and when, in like manner, kings and their subjects contended, the one for power and the other for liberty, he was the usual arbiter, as being independent of either, and most likely to give an impartial judgment: and in several instances, the stipulation of the contract specially designated him as the interpreter of its meaning, the arbiter of the differences, and the judge of the construction of the instrument. So it was in some of the charters by which ecclesiastical courts were invested with civil and criminal jurisdiction, as might be yet seen in several of the copies of the grants by which they were created. It became his duty frequently on this account, to interfere in the same manner that a court of chancery would at present, and he frequently decided against the tyrannical attempts of the king, or his officers, to violate the chartered rights of those courts to which, by the British law, the clergy and other dependents upon the church were amenable. By the ancient laws of England, and not by the laws of the Pope, clergymen and the dependents of the church were amenable to particular courts held by authority of the constitution, and not of the church; and which courts were established by virtue of charters and compacts with the supreme civil power of England, from which their jurisdiction was derived; just as the officers and dependents of barons were, by the feudal system, amenable to the courts of those barons within the realm of England. Tyrants frequently sought to oppress the officers and servants of the church, as also those of the barons; but the courts of each, which were made the constitutional protectors as well as judges of the officers or dependents, interposed, and were on that account detested and reviled by those tyrants, and by their parasites. Those courts then existed not by Papal, but by constitutional creation; they were not Roman, but British institutions; their civil and criminal jurisdiction emanated from the charters of the British crown, not from the Papal bulls. In America we recognise, as an old principle of sound British constitutional law, the validity of charters, the stability of chartered rights, the duty of all the members of the corporation, and protectors of a corporation to vindicate those rights, and their obligation to resist any tyrannical attempt which might be made by king, or by Pope, or by reformer, to violate the contract by which those rights were legally and constitutionally secured. Thus, the exemptions of the clergy were made by British charters, and not by Papal authority. 2. It is untrue, that the Pope, as head of the church, exercised civil authority in the realm of England, over all those exempt persons, by courts established by his authority in the kingdom.、 No such court was established by the authority of the Pope, as head of the church. He neither had, nor claimed, nor exercised any civil jurisdiction within the realm. 3. It is untrue, that the Pope would not allow a clergyman or ecclesiastic to be amenable to the civil authority, even for the blackest and most notorious crimes. The Pope, who was head of the church, was protector of its rights, whether original or acquired; and also was generally made arbiter of the differences which arose in feudal times between princes who entered into the great confederation of Christian Be the policy of creating such courts good or bad, it matters not for the historical critic; the "historical fact" is all which it is his business to discover: and it is a fact that the Savannah subscriber to the Georgian has either ignorantly or wittingly made, in one short paragraph, three egregious misstateinents, highly injurious to the Roman Catholic religion. We shall also show that he is equally incorrect in his statement of the original meaning of head of the church, as applied to King Henry VIII., who first assumed the appellation in the statute which confirmed the title. 1. It is not true, that the meaning of the king is the head of the church was intended by King Henry VIII., who first assumed it, and his courtiers who first bestowed it, to be confined to asserting that clergymen, as well as laymen, should be amenable for their crimes and misdemeanours to the civil tribunals of the kingdom. In November of the year 1534, the act (xxv. Henry VIII.) was passed, declaring the King of England, his heirs and successors, should be taken and reputed the only supreme heads on earth of the Church of England,-with full power to visit, reform and correct all such errors, heresies, abuses, contempts and enormities, which by any manner of spiritual authority ought to be reformed and corrected. Previously to this, viz., in 1529, the act which deprived the clergy of their immunities had passed, though unconstitutionally, and with the protest of the lower house of convocation, as may be seen in Collier, ii. Records xxviii. There was an act then passed in 1529, depriving the clergy of several of those immunities given to them by British, not by Papal law; and in 1534, that is five years afterwards, an act passed, making King Henry VIII., his heirs and successors, heads of the church, with, amongst a variety of others, the powers enumerated above. Thus, the true meaning of the king being head of the Church of England, is not that clergymen, as well as laymen, are subject and amenable to the civil tribunal; and in point of fact, the ecclesiastical courts do as yet exist, and the clergy still do possess nearly all the immunities not taken away by the act of xxi. Henry VIII. in 1529. 2. It is not true, that the King of England had, before the Reformation, the power and right to appoint to vacant bishoprics. within twelve days to return as duly elected the person whose name was therein contained, under the penalty of forfeiting their right of election for that time, and the choice would then devolve to the crown. The king would then signify the election to the archbishop, and grant his warrant for the consecration; this was before the act of headship. In Ireland the mockery of election is dispensed with, and the appointment is made at once by letters patent. does not pretend to be a bishop, and thus to 3. Though the king, as head of the church, have power to consecrate bishops or to ordain priests, yet it is true that the bishops of that church did acknowledge that their spiritual commission was derived from the king as head of the church, though their spiritual character was derived from their ordination,-and thus they avowed the king tion, and in this sense they did acknowledge to be the source of their spiritual jurisdichim to be the head of the church. The disIn England this right and power was ge- Protestant clergyman is ordained presbyter tinction is simple and intelligible. When a nerally vested in the chapters, subject to or priest, he has received his character by the confirmation of the Pope. John and which he is qualified to do the duties of his other tyrants, who sought to oppress the office; but until he is appointed to a place, people by nominating their favourites to he has not jurisdiction or authority over any the bishoprics, were foiled in their attempts person as his spiritual teacher or guide: by fraud and force, to obtain this power; without meaning anything disrespectful, we and the principal disputes they had with shall compare it to the certificate of the Rome were caused by their violence in op- Board at West Point, that a young gentleposing bishops who, like Langton, taught man is fitted or qualified to take a comthe people the nature of their civil and po- mand or to hold a commission: let us suplitical rights, and made the barons swear to pose the law to be that no commission vindicate their liberties against the despot- would be valid, except it was founded upon ism of the monarch. It was by bishops a certificate of qualification: he afterwards the barons were taught to obtain and to de- is commissioned in a particular regiment— fend the Magna Charta against the king, his authority is derived from the commiseven when he sought the protection of the sion, not from the certificate, because whilst Pope against the bishops, and the barons, he held only the certificate he had no auand the people. On this account the arbi- thority; although, because of its possession, trary kings of England and their sycophants he was qualified for receiving authority, yet hated and persecuted the bishops. since, under the Reformation, the kings of by the commission itself. So, no person But that authority was bestowed upon him only England have attained the power of ap- could be appointed to a spiritual charge pointing obsequious men to the sees, the unless he had been ordained; but his spibishops give them no trouble; they are sel- ritual jurisdiction is derived from the apdom found to be the advocates of popular pointment, his spiritual character of qualifirights and public liberties. In March, 1534, cation is derived from the ordination. was passed the statute xxiv. Henry VIII., providing, that bishops should no longer be presented to the Pope for approbation; and the mockery of an election was substituted for its reality. Upon any vacancy of a see, the king was to send to the dean and chapter, or to the prior and monks, as the case might be, who in Catholic times had the full right of real election, his letters missive, or conge d'elire, giving them permission to proceed to the election, and requiring them was declared that a portion of the power of Thus, by the statute xxv. Henry VIII.. it the regal head of the church was to visiť, which was always an episcopal act, or at least that of a spiritual superior, and to correct errors and heresies, which are spiritual crimes, and all other such as may be reformed and corrected by spiritual authority. Henry appointed Thomas Cromwell his vicar-general, which is a spiritual officer. This vicar-general held visitations, which is the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction. The spiritual commissions of the bishops are superseded by the king, which is the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction; the said commissions are renewed to them as deputies of the king, who is the supreme head; the commissions specify the particular acts of spiritual power, viz., ordinations, the administration of sacraments, preaching, &c., which they are to use during the king's pleasure, and as his deputies, and to prove the power to be delegated, and not original. Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, acknowledges that it ceased with the life of the principal, and he renews his commission from the new head, Edward VI.; and yet the Savannah subscriber of the Georgian tells us, that the king was head of the church only in being equally king of the clergy and of the laity But one other fact will complete the test. A number of priests were hanged during the reign of Elizabeth, for denying this supremacy, and were offered their lives if they would acknowledge her as head of the Church of England. They one and all acknowledged her to be the lawful Queen of England, and declared solemnly, that clergy and laity were alike amenable to the civil laws, now that the immunities had been by Parliament abolished; yet they were hanged for continuing to deny that she was head of the church. In September, 1535, the king suspended during pleasure the powers of all the archbishops, bishops, and other ordinaries within the realm; after the lapse of a month, the prelates presented a petition to be restored to the exercise of their authority; and a commission was issued to each bishop separately, authorizing him during the king's pleasure, and as the king's deputy, to ordain persons born within his diocess, and to do the other spiritual duties. Again, in February, 1547, Cranmer, upon the ground that his commission from Henry died with that monarch, petitioned and obtained a new commission to execute the functions of archbishop under Edward, the then head of the church, as did other bishops. We shall stop here for the present. SECTION II. We have shown that the subscriber to the Savannah Georgian did not state the fact correctly, when he wrote that the true meaning of head of the church, as applied to the King of England, was only that clergymen as well as laymen should be amenable for their crimes and misdemeanours to civil tribunals of the kingdom. We might, if further proof of our position were necessary, refer to the fact, that the Presbyterian clergy did not and do not claim exception from amenability to the civil tribunals of the kingdom, and yet they deny to the king the style and right of being head of the church, neither does any one of the thousand and one Protestant sects which England contains, besides her national church, admit that he is properly or lawfully head of the church, or claim an exemption for the clergy from responsibility to the civil tribunals. The letter-writer continues: "As to the writer's account of the subordinate officers of that church so frightfully marshalled under the titles of archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans, canons, prebendaries, parsons, rectors, vicars, and curates, I will say but may be comprehended under the three simple little. The whole of this formidable catalogue titles of bishop, priest, and deacon; all the rest being only significant of the situations in which these holy orders are exercised. The term parson, however, belongs to no particular rank, and is now seldom used in relation to ministers of the church of England, or other churches, except as a diminutive, like pettifogger applied to the members of another profession." With all due submission to the learned correspondent of the Georgian, we would advise him to study a little longer before he undertakes to correct what he calls other people's "unfair or erroneous statements." PARSON is not like pettifogger, a diminutive, or a name of contempt; but it is a name of honour and dignity; it is a legal term of beneficial prerogative and privilege. Every parish priest in Catholic times was by the British law, a corporation; and at present so is the parish minister; he and his predecessors and successors, are by law considered but as one undying corporation-or civil person; and he represents his entire parish; thus the PARSON has numberless valuable rights and privileges and honours, which belong to no other clergyman. The law knows him in his own right and original public character; but knows not his assistant or any other clergyman who has not a parsonage, except as aids to the parson, or principal. Without meaning disrespect to the American church, it does not contain in its whole aggregate so important an indiIvidual as the English parson. The bishops and priests and deacons of the Protestant Episcopal Church of America, are, one and all, salaried officers, dependent upon their vestries: in the eye of the law they are only private individuals; whereas the English Parson is a sole corporator, and a perfect corporation. No Protestant clergyman in America is entitled to the appellation; to call him parson, would be equivalent to a |