DR. NEWMAN'S PAMPHLET. Second Notice.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 124, 10 September 1875, Page 12

DR. NEWMAN'S PAMPHLET. Second Notice.

Makt must have been surprised at the energetic manner in which the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops spoke against the Papal Infallibility, as Mr. Gladstone shows, when asked about it in view of re-admitting Roman Catholics within the pale of the British Constitution in 1826. Dr. Newman quotes from a Pastoral of Dr. Troy, Archbishop o£ Dublin, in 1793, in which he says, " Until the Church decide on thequestion of Papal Infallibility, individual Catholics may adopt or reject the doctrine without any breach of Catholic communion or peace:" Dr. Newman admits that the language of the Irish Catholic Bishops, in reply to the British Q-overnmeut about Papal Infallibility,, was too energetic against the doctrine? "to suit the atmosphere of Rome." But they were tinged, ho says, like many other ecclesiastics of the time with " G-allican ideas," in fact, they were "Liberals" in a mild way. There were bishops even at the Vatican Council who believed that the "definition" could not be made, even although they themselves held the doctrine. Dr. Newman asks, if the British Government wished to know the certainty of the matter in 1826, why did they not interrogate the Pope himself by a regular official at his Court? Why go pottering about universities and asking inferior authorities ? Why not go straight to head-quarters at once ? The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel must both haye known that " the Popes," as Mr. Gladstone asserts, " have kept up with comparatively little intermission for nigh 1000 years their claim to dogmatic infallibility." Why then all this ado about the matter of 1826, as if it were something novel or uncertain, to be determined by questions addressed to this or that bishop in any country. The British Government would not Bacrifice either its consistency and dignity, but rather preserve both by having a regularly appointed envoy at the Papal Court, through whom it might communicate with the Pope on matters affecting its Roman Catholics subjects in their religious interests. The Englkh would fain ignore him, and try to do so by refusing to send a regular ambassador to the Papal Court. Yet they are or profess to be terrified at his power, and aro looking about with prudent care lest he catch them unaware. Give Ireland "Home Rule," and there are men of mark in England who tell us that thereby you would deliver it over to the Pope ; to be governed by his deputies the terrible " priests." Poor Pius IX. is used as a political Bogie, to terrify the Bulls out of their wits and prevent them doing " justice to Ireland." It is pitiful to see a great nation like England nursing its wrath for centuries sgainat the Pope, the common Father of all Chiustians, and who loves England with a special affection. When the First Napoleon had Europe at his feet and wished to engage the Pope in a scheaio to ruin England through her commerce, the Pope had the courage to refuse point blank and to defy the iisurper to do his worst. He had a higher respect for the Sovereign of England than for the Cor.sican usurper, victorious though lie was. The people of England were his spiritual children though disobedient, and injure them he never would. TjlT/1