^ ,9u ^^^a^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^^ / .^ ,> y >^ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. MSEO (716) 873-4503 CIHM/rCMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha 'natituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy avallabia for filming. Faaturaa of this copy which may ba bibliograpli^Qaliy uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may signi'lcantiy change tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D D D □ D D Qplourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur r~| Covars damaged/ Couvarture andommagAe Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou palliculAe r~n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de le distortion ie long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appeiar within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais. lorsque cela 6talt possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti fiim^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: The to tt L'Institut a microfilm^ la mailleur exemplaira qu'il lui a AtA poaaibla de se procurer. Les details da cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniquea du point da vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normala de f ilmaga sont indiquAs ci-dessous. n~| Coloured pagea/ n D )^ n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagias Pages restored and/or 'aminated/ Pages restaurias et/ou peiliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcolortes, tachaties ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence The poss oft! filmi Orig begi the I sion othe first sion or ill I I Quality of print varies/ Quality inigaie de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppiimantaira Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible The shall TINl whic IVIap diffe entir begii right requ metf Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont At* film6es A nouveau de facon h obtenir la mellleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce A la g^nirositd de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in iteeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire fiimi, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimis en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte um empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboies suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different niduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, plcinches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre film6s d des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 \ ■■ ROME IN CANADA. THE ULTRAMONTANE STRUGGLE FOR SUPREMACY OVER THE CIVIL POWER. l{\' CHARLES LINDSEY. TORONTO : WILLIAMSON & CO. 1889. *'t 49652 Entered according to Act of Parliament of Canada, by Charles Lindsey, in the Office of the Minister of Agriculture. MAIL JOB DEPT., PRINTERS, TORONTO. \ CONTENTS. Introduction to Second Edition i-xxxviii I. Premonitions of the Struggle 3 II. The Rise of the New School 11 III. Liberties of the Gallican Church 43 lY. Gallicanism Transplanted to Canada 75 V. The Jesuits and the Civil Power 90 VI. The Anglo-Gallican Theory 118 VII. The Programme Catholique 153 VIII. The Assault on the Old Liberties 157 IX. Catholic Liberalism 187 X. The Apotheosis of Intolerance 210 XI. The Marriage Relation 221 XII. Appeals to Rome 244 XIII. The Bishops Claiming Political Control 252 XIV. Spiritual Terrorism at Elections 272 XV. The Claim of Clerical Immunity 294 XVI. The Congregation of the Index and the Inquisition 810 XVII. The Wealth of the Church 345 XVIII. A Recoil at one Point of the Line 396 INDEX. Aberdeen, liord, on JegiiitH' EHtatoH (1HH;>), Intro, iii. AinhorHt, Oeneral, and tlio Treaty of Ctipitulation, Intro, xxx. ApotheosiH of Intolerance, 210. Ai)i)ealH to Komo, 244, 247. AHsault on the Old LibertieH, The, I ')7. Bedard, P. II., and the KccleHiastical Power in Canada, 148. Bien Public, Le, Protests, 31. iJirtha, BiHhop of, 14, 181. defincH Catholic LiberaliBm, 197. * Bonaventure Election Cane, 287, 3!Mi. BosHuetand the SyllabuH, 73. Bourf^et, Bishop, leader of the Ultramontane Movement, 4. denounccH Fenian Movement, ?■ becomes Archbishop of Martinopolis, 7. Golden Weddinf» of, I7i>. defines Catholic Liberalism, 11)0. interference of in Elections, 254, 201. on Institut Canadien, 310. Braun, Father, contends that laws of the Church are obligatory on heretics, 40. objectionable Sermon of, 115, 176. eulogizes Bishop Bonrget, 178. on Protestantism, 210. on Marriage, 221. Bulletin Mensuel, and the Restoration of Temporal Power, 34. Canadian Governors, Instructions of, with regard to their recognition of the Ecclesiastical Power, 143. Cartier, Hir George, protests against Church's invasion of Civil Rights, 3fi4. Cassault, Judge, on Bonaventure Election Case, 287. Catholic Liberalism, 187, 2(;3. Ultramontane hatred and misrepresentation of, 100. the Pope's attitude towards, 197. and Bishop Pinsonneault, 198. and Vicar-General Raymond, 201. and the Abbe Pellt-tier, 207. Charlevoix Election Case, Judge Routhier on, 281. Hon. Hector Langevin on, 301. gravity of, 396, INDEX. Chaboillez, M., and the KccleaiaHtical Power in Canada, 146. Church of Home heirH to Jesuit Profierty, Intro, xix. omnipotent in Quebec, 10. in Quebec, Wealth of, .345. C/harter of the LibertioH of French (panada, 16. Civil Power in Quebec attacked, !'>. Clergy of Quebec and Civil Authority, IHfi. Clerical Immunity, Claim of, 294. ('lerical Intimidation at Elections, 272, 28.'). Code deg CurcH, 12, I.*). Com^'die Infernnle, Lo, 19, 1«>2, :m. Concordat (l.'iie). The, and the Gallioan Church, .'>7. Conquest, Th«, and the Treaty, Intro, xxi., xxvi., 128. Convents, Endowment and Wealth of, 385. Courrier de St. Hyacinthe, an Echo of the Church, 29. Custom of Paris, 84. David, M., and the Quebec .Jesuits, Intro, vi. Dessaule, M., and the Index, 840. Divorce and the Romish Church, 2.36. Doutre, M., on the Hyllabus, a06. Droit de Regale, The, 02, 65. Edicts and Ordinances codified, 16. Elections, Spiritual terrorism at, 272, 285. Canadian Law on undue influence in, 280. Clerical intimidation at, 275, 285. Episcopate (R.C.) of Canada, claims to be above Civil Power, 21. Excommunication, Menace of, Intro, xx. Fenelon, Abbe de, criticizes Frontenac, 85. French Canada, Charter of the Liberties of, 16. Church, The, and the Pope, 48. Church, The, and the Decrees of the General Councils, 52. Galilean Church, Liberties of, 4B, 60. charter of (1682), 62, 67. Galileans and Ultramontanes, Intro, v., 6, 11, 148, 1.57. Gallicanism transplanted to Canada, 75. Hagellated by the .Jesuit Father Braun, 177. Ganme, Mf^r., Petit Catechism du Syllabus, 219. Gazette de Sorel denounced, 24. Goderich, Lord, on .Jesuit Estates (1832), Intro, xviii., 355, 379. Guibord Case, The, .321. Gury, Father, " Compendium Theologiro Moralis," Intro, xxxviii. Immunity of Church from municipal taxation, 365. Index, The, 12, 17, 310, 313. and the Inquisition, 310. Institut Canadien, The, 4, 310. and the Guibord Case, 333. Annuaire of, under the Index, 313. INDEX. JeHuitB, HtrenKth of the Order in Quebec, Intro, i. flrst ac(]uire property in Canada, Intro, xxii. and the Iro<|uoiH, Ul. and the AcadianH, 0((. and the Kduoation of the Youn((, 101. and their KHpionaKe at Montreal, OH. attempt of to make Canada a Paraguay, 00, 113. Adminiutcr JuHtice, 84. and the Civil Power, }K). UHe of the ('onfeHsional, 110. Educational EatabUHhmentH of, Intro, i., iv. Property of, Intro, i. ■ Papal liullH concede rights to, Intro, ii. Incorporation of in Quebec, Intro, i. Huppressed by Clement XIV. (1773), Intro, vii., xxii., xxxiii., xxxiv. and .'148. KntatcH in (!anada oncheat to the Crown, Intro, vii., xii. British Government instructH Governor to suppress the Order in Canada (1774), Intro, vii. expelled from France in 1702, Intro, vii., xxiii. opposed by Bishops in Quebec, Intro, i. opposed by other branches of the R. C. Church, Intro, v. opposed by University of Laval, Intro, v. hatred of the Hulpicians, Intro, iv. teaching of the, Intro, xxxvii. acquisitive appetite of, 353. early engagement of in trade in Canada, 351. property held by, at Conquest, devolved to the Crown, 348. Father- General of the Order holds property for, 349. Estates pjndowment, Intro, vi., viii. revenue from Estates in Canada goes to Church, Intro, xviii. restoration of Estates demanded, Intro, xix. restoration of Order in 1814, 848. invited to return to Canada in 1841, Intro, iv. British Government resigns Estates of in Canada to Provincial Legislature for purposes of Education (1831), Intro, viii., xii. Imperial veto in 18.35, Intro, iv. Joint Letter of Quebec Bishops, on Political Elections, 261, 279, Archbishop Lynch in opposition to, 208. Journal de Quebec opposes Ultramontanes, 29. Lafontaine, M., resistance of to Secularization, 881. and the Jesuits in 1840, Intro, x. Latleche, Bishop, Pastoral Letter of (1870), on Political Elections, 205. Lake of Two Mountains Mission, 301. Langevin, Bishop, asserts Political Power to belong to the Church, 259. Hon. Hector, on Marriage and Canadian Legislation on the subject, 237. Hon. Hector, accepts Rome's bidding in his duties as a Canadian Legislator, 238, 246. •T IShKX. L«ni(eviM, Hon. Ilortor, on Charldviii. Kle(;tinii (!aiic, .')(M. Lahoiitfiii, Haron, in Canada, in lOHt ;>, \)'i. Laval, llnivitrHity of, an ohiUrnrtioniHt, 101, roceivcH (!anoni(; Kniction (|N7(i), 108. Iiarti({iio, ItiNhop, and tho Nan ('aHu, 141. li'KvcnonM'iit, '2t. liO [iontrc and tho Kninch NcutraU in Acadia, lOO, Iir)tt()ri(!H a Hoiinio of witaltli to the ('hnrcli, ',\~'l, liynch, ArclibiHliop, drawH upon hiinHolf ()ltramontan» iro, |H*>. — — oppfmt'H jr)int lottor of (^uohw; ItiHiiopH on l'oliti*;al KloctionH, liiberte lUdigionHo on (!anada, 'JO. Liberal I'roHH of Qnoboc and tiiu Church, '22. Manitoba, proHpoctH of the (Miurch in, .'JHH, Marria^^o Uulation, The, '2'21. Father liraun on, '22H. claim of the Church r>f Home to create impedinientH to, '210. Memoire Hur Ich bieuH dcH .IcHuitcH en Canada, lntrr>. xiii. Mercier, M., makcH Hettlcnient of .IcHuit claimH, Intro, ix., xv. . accuHCH UritJHh (iovernment of bad faith, Intro, xxi., xxiv. and charjje of confiHcation, Irtro. xxiv. Montreal, liiHhop of. See llouryet. . Inland of, how it waH obtained by the (Jhurch, 'J.')l. Wealth of HiHhopric of, .'{Ol. Mortmain, Law of, and tho fJhurch'H Property, 'M'.W. Murray, (lov.-(ieneral, objectH to the I'^loction of DiuhopH in tho cr>lony, i'2'2. InHtrnctionH re(^ardin>{ KcclcHiaHtical .Jurindiction, I '27. InutructionH diHre({arded, lUI. New School, Tho, in Quebec, Doctrines of, l'». open attack on the Old Libertien, I.'i!!, 184. Nouveau Monde, Le, i;{, 27. O'lJrien, Col., Motion for DiHallowance of Jesuit Incorporation Act, Intro, xxxvii. Papal Court, The, itH arrogance, H. Interference with (3ivil affairH in Canada, 24H, Pays, Le, denounced, 2H. Paquet, Abbe, liOctureH on Intolerance, 210. Pellctier, Abbe, Pamphlet on LiberaliBm. Plessis, Birthop, diHcuHHion with Attorney-General Hewell an to rij^htH of the (!hurch in (Janada, i;-52. Political Parties HubHervient to Papacy, Intro, ix. control claimed by Quebec Episcopate, 2r)2. Pontifical Zouaves, 12, Hf), 37. Pope, The, disposes of Jesuit Endowment, Intro, viii., xv. and xxxvi. Priest, Tho, in Quebec and his relations to Civil Power, ITiO. Programme Catholique, The, 153. interferes in Elections, 154. INIiKX. T'roto«t»nt rler«y Reaervofi and H. C TlnrlowmentH, 371. I'reHH, The. r«^uiiitc(l hy tho Clornv, 21, '2«». I'rovinoo of (Quebec » U. C Htfttn of Kiiropu in Middlo A>{(m, [iitro. ix. — . — LogiHltttiirc of, acknowlod({UH Tapal ducruuM biiidiitt{, 24i'. Quebec, Hnpcrior (Council of, 7H. - - i'roviiice a U. (). Htatu of Ktircipu in Middle A^ch, Intro, ix. (!ivil Ui^htH joopardi/.ed by accuptanco of Doctrine of i'apal Infiiilibility, It. ('. KpiHcopato aHHort control over ParlianKiiitarv KIcctionB, '2.J2. (;onncil of Public InHtruction, Intro, xvii. I'oliticianHthreatonedwith Kxcomtnunication if JeHiiitM'KHtateH are not Hiirrendored, Intro, xx. (!apitulation of, ArticloH, Intro, xxv. Act (177 1), Intro, xxvi., 21. Raymond, Vicar-General, cxprcHHSH abhorrence of LiboraliHui, yot teachcH the doctrine, 201. declareH Heli(;iouH Liberty an evil, 21.'). Hccoil at one point of the Line, IMNI. Koli^iouH OrderH in Canada, money and land ^rantH to, \HH, licveil, Lc, an advocate of Kccular Kducation, .'{2. under an interdict, 217. UcvenucHof the (Church, 301. KiHo of the New Hchool in Quebec, H. Rome, PretenHionH -^f i.. Quebtic, 2.')<». and tho Spaninh American (^olonieH, 87. — (;hurch of. Property held by at (lonqucBt, 'XM, Roman juriHdiction invoked, 217. Routbier, .Iud(;e, contendu for Churcli'a ri){ht to control the Public HchoolH, IHI. on the Charlevoix Election Case, 281, .SO'i. Kt. Anne, Colle(;e of, and the New Opinions, 18,3. Kewoll, Attorney-General, interpretn the Quebec Act coiicernin({ ri( INDEX. Treaty of Paris (1763), Intro, xxi., xxvi., 128. Tremblay, M., on Clerical Immunity, 303. Ultramontane Demands, 8. and Gallican, Intro, v., 6, 11, 148, 157. Unum Sanctum, Bull, 38. Vatican Decrees, 4, 5. Villeneuve, Alph. " Le Com^die Infernale," 19, 162, 334. War of 1812, The, and advantage taken of it by the Church in Quebec, 142. Wedderburn, Solicitor-General, opinion of, on Eights of Ecclesiastics in Quebec, 121. Wealth of the Church, 345. INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION. Eleven years have passed since this book first made its appearance. In the interval, the Jesuits in Canada have taken twosteps towards the attainment of the objects of their ambition, ecclesiastical and civil supremacy. They have obtained an Act of Incorporation, in the Province of Quebec, with the right tohold property to the value of three hundred thousand dollars a year. The Act was obtained in opposition to the wishes of seven out of ten of the Roman Catholic bishops, a decisive proof that the Jesuit Order is stronger than the episcopate of the Prov- ince. In vain Cardinal Taschereau and seven bishops asked that the measure might be postponed for a year ; the Jesuits were triumphant in the Private Bills Committee and in the Legislature. In the three dioceses of Montreal , Three Rivers, and Ottawa, the bishops were in favor of incorporation. To these dioceses the Jesuits, whose headquarters are in the City of Moiitreal, are to confine their educational establishments for the present, a restriction which they will be able to over- come when they subdue other bishops to their will. They can acquire and hold property, real and personal, in any part of the Province. How these pious men keep their vow of poverty they have previously shown, by piling up riches ; and what they could do when the country was new and poor, they will now be able to accomplish with even greater ease. The nominal limit of three hundred thousand dollars a year is a barrier which will not cause them to suffer the least self-restraint in reconciling the vow, which is supposed to mark the humil- ity of the Mendicant Order, with the accumulation of ple- thoric wealth. 11. To understand the full significance of the incorporation of the Jesuits, it is necessary to remember the clause which enacts that " this corporation shall be governed by the rules of the community ": a legal recognition of their institute. Mgr. Hamel stated before the Private Bills Committee that there exist Papal Bulls which in effect give the Jesuits the right to confer degrees in letters, science, arts, philosophy, and theo- logy, though not in medicine and civil law. The key-note of the discussion on the bill was struck by M. Gladu : *' We desire to give to the Jesuits whatever the Pope is willing to give them, neither more nor less •" and if Papal Bulls give them the right to confer degrees, that right they have got. But the Jesuits have long been asking authority to do> in Quebec, what even Pius IX. was constrained to deny them. The seven opposing bishops based their opposition to the teaching of the Jesuits, and they nominally withdrew it on the Order undertaking not to invade the reserved dioceses with their educational apparatus. By a brief of Paul III. the Order is empowered to modify its rules and statutes as time and place may render expedient. Pius V. confirmed all the privileges which had ever been or might be conferred upon them, and from these privileges even the Pope himself was not to be at liberty to derogate. If this charter is still operative, the Jesuit Order is placed beyond the pale even of Papal authority, and assuredly it often acts as if this were its recognized position. By the Act of Incorporation, the authority given to make rules for carrying out the objects of the Society {generalement tons reglements en rapport avec les fins de la corporation) is practi- cally unlimited. If the veto had been applied to the Act incorporating the Jesuits, the Federal Government could have defended the Act on the strong ground of Imperial precedent. In 1834 the Legislature of Lower Canada passed an Act intended to give corporate powers to all Provincial institutions which had for their object the promotion of education. The grounds of III. disallowance were stated by Lord Aberdeen in a despatch dated January i, 1835. ^^ ^^s admitted that the Act was within the competence of the Provincial Legislature. " The Constitutional Act of 1791," the despatch expressly admits, "confers on the Governor of the Provinces, as a member of the Legislature, powers large enough for this purpose, and although the same Act enables the King to instruct the Gov- ernor as to the exercise of these powers, yet His Majesty has not hitherto found, and does not now perceive, any reason for fettering your Lordship's discretion to assent to any bills which may be tendered to you for the erection of corporate bodies in the Province." The objections which called forth the veto rested entirely on the character of the measure. The bill gave corporate faculties to every institution in the Province which possessed any lands devoted to the purposes of educa- tion, but did not prescribe the mode of their government, subject them to any visitorial authority, or provide for a for- feiture of their charters for a flagrant abuse of their powers. Besides, it drew an unreasonable distinction between existing and future institutions for the education of youth. By this Act, if it had been permitted to go into operation, the Jesuits might have obtained incorporation in spite of the clause which assumed to protect the rights of the Crown. "I do not," said Lord Aberdeen, " overlook the clause which secures the rights of the Crown, but neither do I think that it was meant or could be construed in such a sense as to obviate the consequences I have mentioned ; the pretensions of the Sulpicians and the Jesuits to a corporate character in Lower Canada should have been expressly mentioned as claims with which the bill does not in any sense interfere," much less assume to settle. The non-exclusion of the Sulpicians and the Jesuits from incorporation, by express terms, was fatal to the bill. The objection to the incorporation of the Sulpicians arose mainly out of questions of property rights, and when these were settled, nearly half a century ago, they were allowed IV. to be incorporated. The objections to the incorporation of the Jesuits lie deeper. The exercise of the veto in 1835 is a precedent that exactly fits the present case. At that time there was not a single member of the Order in Lower Canada, the present Province of Quebec, which the Jesuits are over- running, and where they are endeavoring to put under their feet not only all other religious orders in the Church of Rome, but also the whole episcopal and civil authority. In connection with the incorporation of the Jesuits, it is well to recall the fact that soon after the Conquest the Governmentof Great Britain decided that no more Jesuits were to be allowed to come to Canada, and that for more than three-quarters of a cen- tury none did come. About the middle of this century, members of the Order once more flocked to Montreal. In less than forty years they have acquired a power greater than that of the united episcopate of the Roman Church, in the Province of Quebec. The assertion in recent years in the Province of Quebec of the extreme pretensions of the Church cf Rome, pretensions which in Europe had their culmination and decline, with a partial revival in the Vatican Council, are directly traceable to the return of the Jesuits. It was an evil day for Canada when, in 1841, the late Bishop Bourget wended his way to Rome to invite the Jesuits to come and set up a college, under the shadow of the Episcopal Palace, at Montreal. The invitation was eagerly accepted. Eleven years later a charter of incorporation for the college was obtained. Except a few spasmodic denuncia- tions of " the Jesuit incorporation," the incident excited no more than a passing interest. The truth is the significance of the measure was not at all understood. Only ten members from Upper Canada voted against the charter, and half of them did so in a spirit of chronic opposition. Very soon the hand of the Jesuit was uplifted, dealing blows in every direction. Their aim of supplanting the hated influence of the Sulpicians and bending the episcopate to V. their will was not long concealed. They dealt hard blows, right and left, in every direction, not sparing even the supreme authority of the Pope, when it was exerted to thwart their design of monopolizing education within the bosom of the ■ ance." Of this Article, M. Mercier says: "This Article does not appear to have been refused, and is not marked as granted." If the Article was not accepted, it stands as a mere sterile pro- posal, with which nothing was done. No argument in favor of the Jesuits can be drawn from a proposal which was not acted upon.* But on the supposition that this Article was accepted, • I think, however, that M. Mercier here makes an honest mistake against himself and .against the cause he is advocating. I have several copies of the Capitulation, in both languages, published at different times and places, and not one of them shows that this Article was not accepted. The mistake of the copy on which M. Mercier relied is, that what is put as the last sentence in the French demand, was really the British reply. It is so marked in all my copies in both languages. I !l 6- ', xxvl. what does It amount to ? Simply that the different parties named mi^ht sell their property, on condition that they left the country. The Jesuits did not, by departing, fulfil the condition, and the privilege lapsed. To the above extracts from the Articles of Capitulation, M. Mercier adds the following from the IV. Article of the Treaty of Paris : '• His J{ritannic Majesty further agrees that the French inhabitants, or others, who have been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and free- dom whenever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to subjects of His Britannic Majesty, and bring away their effects, as well as their persons, without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence what- ever, except that of debt or of criminal prosecutions ; the term limited for this emigration shall be fixed at the space of eighteen months, to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.' The question arises " whether the grants made in the Ca[)ituIations are to be regarded as perpetually binding, or only to be in force till the definitive treaty of peJice is signed, and to lose all further validity unless confirmed there, either by express or general terms ? " This question was asked at an early date, and, '■ the opinion of some, expressed at the time, it received a substantial reply from the British Parlia- ment, in 1774, in passing the Quebec Act, the first consti- tution for Canada, excepting religious orders and communities from the number of those who were to hold their property and possessions, with all the customs and usages thereto belonging. The truth is there were disputes about titles which a general confirmation would have settled adversely to the British Crown. Whatever rights of properly were granted in the Capitu- lation could only mean legal rights which were beyond dispute. France, the other party to the treaty made only eleven years before, saw in this enactment no cause of complaint, and as uihi- XXVIl. M. Mercicr himself admits made none. The iricnds of the Religious Orders would naturally try to prevail on the Kinf of France to come to their aid ; but that he did not do so is a silent confession that he felt he did not possess the right. Some of the Articles of the Capitulation of (Juehec were expressly made temporary. The French negotiator asked for the inhabitants the free exercise of their religion, that the ecclesiastical and religious houses should receive protection, and the Bishop the right to the free exercise of his f inctions and his episcopal authority, "till " and only "till the possession of Canada shitU have been decided by treaty between His Most Christian Majesty and His Britannic Majesty." 'J'he request was granted substantially, though in different words ; the limitation as to time was the same that had been asked for. The Jesuits had their college at (Quebec, and if they were com- prised in the religious houses, the stipulation would cease on the conclusion of the definitive treaty of peace. On the sttength of this temporary arrangement, the Jesuits allege that, by the dis|)osition afterwards made of the Jesuits' estates, the Capitu- lation was violated.* When Montreal capitulated, it was not known whether it would be retained by the conquerors, or be given back to F'rance in the general adjustment of the Peace, and this doubt was expressed by the proposed Article XXX., which Sir Geoffry Amherst, the British negotiator, rejected, as well as in Articles XXXVI. and XXXVII. Under these circumstances it was impossible to give a i)ermanent char- acter to stipulations, the fate of which at the Treaty of Peace could not be foreseen. Article II. of the Capitulation of Quebec referred to the inhabitants individually, and not to the communities. No argument in favor of the Jesuit claim can be drawn from it. Article XXXIV. of the Capitulation of Montreal guaranteed to the communities and the priests their rights of property. The Jesuits ceased to be a community by the act of the Pope him- ' Memoire. XXVlll. self before their estates were taken possession of by the Crown. They were not considered as individual priests when the Articles of Capitulation were framed, and could not, therefore, claim under it, as such, after the suppression of the Order. Article XXXIV. was conditional, not absolute, the condition being the departure from Canada of the Jesuits and other Orders and priests. If they would depart they might, in that case, sell their property and take the proceeds of it away with them. The departure c*" the Jesuits would have been considered a good deliverance. They had no legal standing in England, and were entitled to none in Canada. The offer made to them was, in fact, a premium on departure, a tempta- tion for them to go away, the price which the British Government was willing to pay to be rid of them. But it does not follow that the same terms would be allowed to the Jesuits and others if they elected to stay in the country ; there is no promise to this effect, express or implied ; and the error is in assuming that the conditional grant would be equally binding if the condition was not fulfilled as it would have been if it were carried out to the letter. The Recollets left the country some years later, Bishop Hubert having decreed their secularization in 1796, and not till more than sixty years after the Treaty was made did the Government recognize and confirm the claim of the Sulpicians to their estates. No account is taken by M. Mercier of the fact that, at the Capitulation of Montreal, privileges were asked for the Jesuits which were distinctly refused. x\rticle XXXII. reads : " The communities of nuns shal' be preserved in their constitution and privileges. They shall continue to observe their rules. They shall be exempted from lodging any military, and it shall bo forbid to trouble them in their religious exercises, or to enter their monasteries : safeguards shall ever be given to them if they desire them." When this Article had been granted, the French negotiator proposed for Article XXXIII. the following : "The preceding XXIX. Article shall likewise be executed with regard to the com- munities of Jesuits and Recollets, and the House of the Parish of Saint Sulpice at Montreal. These last and the Jesuits shall preserve their right to nominate to certain curacies and missions as heretofore." To which the British negotiator replied : " Refused till the King's pleasure be known." This included a denial of a guarantee to the Jesuits of their constitution, without which they would not be civilly recognized as a community. And assuredly the Treaty of Paris did not give them what the Capitulation of Montreal had denied. By Article IV. of the Treaty, " His Britannic Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholic religion to the inhabitants of Canada; he will consequently give the most effectual orders that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion, according to the rites of the Church of Rome, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit." The limitation, "as far as the laws of Great Britain permit," was an assertion of the supremacy of the civil law over the canon law of Rome. It could not have been made in more precise terms ; the meaning is plain ; whenever the ecclesias- tical law and the civil law come into collision, the latter must prevail. The stipulations of the Treaty of Paris are a guar- antee of the supremacy of the civil law. When the treaty was under negotiation. Lord Egremont tells Governor Murray, the French proposed to insert instead of the limitation, " as far as the laws of Great Britain permit," comme ci-devant^ which would have imposed another condition, that under which the authority of Rome had been exercised and limited, in the Province, under French rule. The proposal was not accepted, on the part of Great Britain, and the English law was made the rule of toleration for the new subjects. (General Amherst had no hesitation in granting the French the free exercise of their religion. The Jesuits''' tell us that * Memoire. t '\ '■'■ XXX. :li :ll 11! to-day they are entitled, on the strength of this promise, to- have transferred to them the estates of the ancient Order of that name, which Pope Clement dissolved in 1773. In view of this statement, it is important to see precisely what General Amherst did promise under this head. Fortunately,, the stipulation was precise, but it was subject to limitations not less certain. We owe this precision to the French negotiator, who, no doubt, had the benefit of the counsel of the ecclesi- asts, among whom we judge, from some of the proposals made, Jesuits were to be found. He asked that (Article XXVII.) "the free exercise of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman reli^;ion shall subsist entire," and he particularized what he meant by this, " in such manner that all the people, ia town and country, and in places and parts most distant, may continue to assemble in the churches and to frequent the sacraments as before, without being molested in any manner, directly or indirectly." This demand was very properly granted; not so another part of the same Article as framed by the French negotiator. He asked General Amherst to stipulate that "these people (the 1 rench-Canadians) shall be obliged by the British Government to pay to the priests the tithes and all the dues (droits) they have been accustomed to pay under the government of His Most Christian Majesty." This demand the British negotiator refused, on the ground that "the obligation of paying tithes will depend on the King's pleasure," and the French clergy in Quebec are now in receipt of tithes solely by the authority of an Act of the British Parliament. In the two parts of this Article as proposed, and the manner in which they were dealt with, we have the French conception of what they understood by the free exercise of their religion, - and what General Amherst considered was, and what was not, necessary to the full enjoyment of the privilege he conceded. Other limitations of the demands made by the French, under this head, were imposed by the British negotiator. He refused to give a guarantee that the Bishop of Quebec should always be- ^3 XXXI. a Roman Catholic and a French nominee. All these and other limitadons and refusals bore upon matters more or less re- motely connected with religion ; but the British negotiator did not regard them as necessary to its free exercise. So far from being guilty of a violation of the Capitulations and the Treaty of Paris, the British Government afterwards granted many things which the Capitulations ha i refused. Among these were tithes ; the laws and usages of the Custom of Paris ; liberty for t'le Bishop to send out new missionaries ; the Acadians who had gone to Canada, and wh^ were refused a guarantee that they should not be sent to England, or to the English colonies, by the Capitulation of Montreal, were allowed to remain. The right of the Roman Catholic Bishop to establish new parishes, denied in the Capitulation, is now exerci.-ed. He was refused the privilege cf the jurisdiction which his ix-edecessor had exercised unc er the French dominion ; now the Bishops are permitted to go much farther than this ; among other things to receive their nomination from the Pope without authority of the Sovereign. As the Minister of Justice reminds us, Eng- land has learned and ungrudgingly practises universal tolera- tion ; the trouble is that in the Church cf Rome we have to do with an organization which adheres to the dcgum uf into!er?nre. and where she possesses the power grants only a partial tolera- tion by way of exception and not as a right. But why dwell on those parts of the Capitulations which were not ratified by the definitive Treaty ? There were not three treaties, but one treat} ; not a Treaty of Quebec, a Treaty of Montreal, and a definitive Treaty of Ftace ; but only the treaty known as the Treaty of Paris. A general of an army, when he negotiates a capitulation, may exceed his powers as well as any other agent, private or public. No one has at- tempted to show that General Amherst was vested by his Government with plenipotentiary powers, by which he was authorize*^ o commit his Government on all the vital points of State policy mentioned in the Capitulations. So much of XXXIl. r :: II' i lii the Capitulations as was transferred to the Treaty received express ratification by the sovereign authorities of England and France, and such parts of the Capitulations as did not receive this ratification must be held to have been rejected by both parties to the Treaty. A similar case is found in the modern history of France. In the reign of Louis XIII.. when the Swiss besieged Dijon, Trimonville, the French commander, entered into an agreement that, in consideration of the Swiss withdrawing, the King of France would renounce his preten- sions to the Duchy of Milar.. The King of France refused to ratify a condition which he had not authorized. Of agreements made by generals without express authority, Grotius* says : " By no means may we admit either the King or the people are obliged thereby." And Vattel says : " If instead of a simple capitulation, a governor, or general of an army, the same as a minister or ambassador exceeding his pow- ers, enters into a treaty or conven ion in the name of the State or the Sovereign, for which he has not received authority, the treaty is null; unless it be expresslyor tacitly ratified by the Chief of the State: expressly, in virtue of an Act bywhich the Sovereign approves the convention and engages to observe it; tacitly, when he does things in virtue of this treaty, which he could not have done, if he did not treat it as concluded and settled." To receive the Capitulation of the French, the English general necessarily had authority ; but the supposition that the two generals had power to commit their Governments on all the questions of public policy dealt with in the Articles of Capitu- lation is negatived by the omission of several of them from the 1 reaty of Peace. All the results that followed the surrender of the French flowed from the simple Capitulation, and nothing was done by Grfeat Britain which could not have been done if the two generals had not, in addition, assumed to enter into details regarding matters of State policy which lay beyond their province. We must, therefore, regard as having * The Rights of Peace and War, Book II., Chap. XV. XXXUI. been rejected such parts of the Capitulations as were not con- firmed by the Treaty of Paris, and take that Treaty as the sole measure of the rights and obligations of the contracting parties. We have seen in what way the Government of Great Britain claimed that, by virtue of the Conquest of Canada by her arms and the Treaty of Paris, the Jesuits' estates merged in the domain of the Crown. Not only does M. Mercier tell the Legislature of Quebec that this was a violation of the Capitula- tions, of the Treaty of Paris, and of International Law, the fact of the conquest itself he absolutely denies; he denies that the French in Canada so much as suffered a defeat. Are we then to believe that the prodigies of valor said to have been performed on the Plains of Abraham are purely mythical? If concjuest be the acquisition of the sovereignty by the superiority of the arms of a foreign Sovereign, who reduces the vanquished to submit to his authority, Canada was concjuered. One of the conditions of the Cap'tulation of Quebec v/as that the French must lay down their arms. In suppressing the Order of Jesuits, Clement XIV. directed that their property should be handed over to the Bishops of the places where it was situated. In Canada, it is admitted that a transfer of the property was not asked, or obtained, by he Bishop, and that he felt that it would be useless to make such a demand.* The Pope's direction to hand over the property to the Bishops did not prevent Father de Glapion, the titular Superior of the dissolved Order, in 1789, submitting an offer in writing on behalf of himself and his three surviving fellow-Jesuits to make over the estates, the disposal of which was already directed by the Pope, "for the benefit of Canadian citizens of the Province of Lower Canada," on condition that they should be applied to purposes of education, under direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, and that each of these four Jesuits should be allowed a life pension of three thousand livres a year. Though the right of the mem- " Mtmoire. i i .M .11 ! i ^il XXXIV. bers of the dissolved Order to stipulate for the surrender of the property was not recognized, the conditions which they desired to make were in the main realized. They got a life maintenance, and the property was afterwards devoted to education, though it was not placed exclusively nor nominally under the control of the Bishop of Quebec. Nor was it ex- clusively devoted to Roman Catholic education, part of it going to the support of Protestant institutions. The pretence of the Pope to say w!iat destination this property should have, on the dissolution of the Order of Jesuits, comes directly into conflict with the rights of the State, and raises the question whether the Crown of Great Britain or the Pope of Rome was to be supreme in Canada. It is a question to which only- one answer can be given. In admitting that the Pope had the right to order the trans- fer of the property of the Jesuits to the Bishops, the Jesuits admit that this property might be diverted from its original destination. But it is pretended that one man only could do this ; in other words, that the Pope of Rome has more power in Canada in this particular than the British Crown and the executive and legislative authority of the Province of Quebec all put together. Some ludicrous pretences are put forward to make it appear the Brief of Suppression could not and did not suppress, owing to alleged trivial informalities in the proceedings. For instance, we are seriously told that Clement's infallibility was on this occasion baffled by the sturdy negligence of the bill- poster to His Holiness, who failed to put up a copy at St. Peter's or in the Champ de Flore, in both of which places it must be posted or the effect which its promulgation was in- tended to produce could not be attained. This defect, it is added, was not produced by the intervention of the Jesuits, who, we are to believe, neither waylaid nor bribed the ecclesiastical bill sticker. That this informality was fatal we are assured on the alleged authority of the most reliable theologians and Hii 1^ ''!i;ii ii.i. -ill! XXXV. canonists.* And so the Jesuit Society, which the Pope in- tended to dissolve and disperse, was neither dissolved nor dispersed. Therefore^for we are to accept the conclusion as logical — the Canadian Jesuits continued to live in society, in possession of their property and the observance of their rules* wearing the habit of the Order as before; in short, conducting themselves as if Pope Clement had never lived to issue his ineffective mandate. A copy of the Brief of Suppression was sent to every Roman Catholic Bishop in the world, with an injunction to publish it wherever any members of the Jesuit Order were to be found, and to enforce its execution on pain of the major excommuni- cation. But once more there was a defect in the publication ; this time the Bishop of Quebec, and not the Papal bill-poster, was the delinquent; this functionary having failed to obey the order of the Pope to publish the Papal Brief, the Jesuits were entitled to benefit by his neglect — so they tell us — and, " therefore, they remained legally in possession" of the Jesuits' estates. But if the Brief of Suppression was not made known in Canada, and for that reason had no effect here, the Pope's order for the future destination of the property was equally null ; therefore, the logic of the Jesuit writer concludes against this claim of the Church of Rome to the Jesuits' estates. Did the Jesuits at Quebec do anything to turn the Bishop from the performance of his duty ? We are reminded that there was a similar failure in Russia and elsewhere. It might have been supposed that a Jesuit writer would not be anxious to revive a recollection of the frauds and forgeries resorted to by members of the Order, in that country, to enable them to escape obe- dience io the Brief of Suppression. In one of these forged documents, the Pope was made to express joy at the position which the Jesuits had attained in Russia; ihe other pretended to convey intelligence that the Brief of Suppression had been recalled. When the Vice-Provincial asked the Empress to * Mtmoire. r If 'M XXXVl. grant permission for the execution of the decree, she refused on the ground that official communication of it had not been made to her by the Holy See. In England, the ofificial publi- cation of a Brief from the Pope was not, at the time, legally permissible. If no fraud similar to those in Russia was perpetrated at Quebec, there was, according to the Jesuit account, culpable negligence on the part of the Bishop ; but that lapse, even supposing that no trick was intended, could not, in the eyes of British law, annul the right of the British Crow'ii to these estates. The effect of the publication or non-publication of Papal Bulls, Briefs, and Decrees of Councils, is differently treated by Jesuit writers, to suit their purposes, under different cir- cumstances. The writer of the Memoire appeals to the Council of Trent to show the effect of non-publication, though the Decrees of that Council, with one exception, not having been published in Canada, were at no time binding here, not even under the French dominion. The Pope has assumed to confirm and give validity to the agreement contained in the Act granting the $400,000. It was not to be binding unless ratified by him. In what capacity does the Pope act ? The Jesuit writers, who tell us that he has the sole right of legislation over these estates, claim no more than Cardinal Simeoni conveyed when he informed Cardinal Taschereau that the Holy Father reserved to himself the right of settling the question.* This claim is put forward in his character of supreme legislator on a question of property rights, which has been determined by British law, and the property has been repeatedly dealt with by the Legislature of Lower and of United Canada. Jesv'i writers tell us that the only duty the Legislature had in the premises was restoration, and that a refusal to comply would have given an impetus to error and involved the sin of rejecting the Syllabus,! an * Les biens des Jesuitei ont restes biens ecclesiastique, et comme tel sont soustrait a la loi civile. —I Icmoire. t Memoire. XXXVll. implication that it is its duty to accept that instrument, regard- less of the fact that in doing so it would sign its own death warrant and that of the people's liberties. Restitution was demanded as a means of • preventing the spread of false, that is Protestant, doctrines.* And M. Turgeon, Attorney of the Jesuits, delined to assent to or even to discuss the pro- posal of M. Mercier that a grant to Protestant education should 1)0 legally secured. The objection that part of the revenue of the Jesuits' estates was being used " for the spread of false doctrines" survives the vote of $400,000, and is sure to be heard of again. I have presented as much of the history of the case as is essential to an understanding of the motives and grounds of action of the Jesuits and the Church of Rome, and must leave the reader to his own reflections. One thing is clear, the conduct of the Jesuits requires to be narrowly watched. Sir John Thompson, speaking in the House of Commons on Mr. O'Brien's motion calling for the disallowance of the Jesuit Bill, for which only thirteen members voted said no charges were now brought against the teaching of the Jesuits. Unless I greatly misread, they teach how mental reservation can rightly throw the shield of perjury over crime. Near the close of the year 1884, a French journal, published at Montreal, La Fatrie, asked if it be true that there existed, in this coun» "a school which teaches the abominable doctrine that u . right to forswear one's self f'w^/////-^ under oath." Whereupon, a champion of Jesuitical teaching came forwaid to admit the '^^c and defend it. This valiant gentle- man va.s a priest, Ed. Brunei, who writes from St. Valere de Bulstrode, December 22nd, 1884, and his letter was published in LEtendard five day.-^, later. He sets out by saying : " For the edification of persons of the school of La Fairie, it is well that they should know that such a school exists, not only in this country, but in the entire world, and that this school is no * Memoire. XXXVIll. I'! If i ;i Other than the Catholic Church." Fie then, by way of proof, quotes from the Compendium Theologuc Moralis of F'ather Gury, a Jesuit priest, which he says " is the manual of theology adopted in all the great Seminaries of the country, and in the greater part of the entire world, not except ing the Roman College at Rome. He quotes from the edition printed by Father Antoine Ballerni, Professor of Theology at the Roman College, and gives for voucher page 472 of the first volume : '* You ought in general to keep a secret confided to you, even when you are interrogated before a judge; you ought to say that you know nothing of that ; for you have this knowledge as if you had it not." Again : " You ought to keep a secret which you receive only in implicit or tacit confidence in the same manner as if it were explicitly confided to you." These direc- tions are addressed to everybody, and are not confined to professional men and priests, so that if any ordinary person learns, in what he may choose to consider implied confidence, that a serious crime has been committed, he is to deny all knowledge of the fact if put on his oath before a court ! Priest Brunei makes merry over the notion that this is " an abomin- able doctrine," and calls it an inanity, which only a Pharisaic brawler could be guilty of uttering. A majority of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Quebec have exacted a promise from the Jesuits that they will confine their teaching to three dioceses. Has the fact of their taking Gury for a moral guide anything to do with the declared antipathy of seven of the Bishops? Or is it true that Gary's book is used in all the great Roman Catholic Seminaries, with- out distinction, as Priest Brunei alleges ? Many items still remain on the Jesuit programme, some of which are even now in course of general realization. BuTTONwooD, April 12th, 1889. I. PREMONITIONS OF THE STRUGGLE. The Vatican Council is sometimes assumed to be the starting' point of a retro'^rade movement in tlic Roman Catholic Church which has for its object the revival of the medieval spirit in the nineteenth century. But the origin of the movement is a little more remote in point of time. The Vatican Council was rather its official con- summation than the initial point. Pius IX. had pre- viously renewed several bulls framed with the view of enabling the Chi-rch of Rome to encroach on the domain of the civil power : bulls which had lallen into disuse for a long period of time, and some of which had from the first been rejected by nearly every government in Chris- tendom. The tone of the Papal Court, gradually increasing in arrogance, carried its fatal contagion slowly but surely to the remotest nations in which a considerable portion ot the population was Roman Catholic. In some coun- tries, the change had not been so great as to attract gen- eral attention before the Vatican Council was held. But the decrees of that Council did not spring out of the earth ; the way had been prepared for them, and it was perfectly understood at Rome before the Council met what was required of it and what it could be relied upon to do. The formal adoption of the dogma of the Im- maculate Conception led up to the declaration of Papal Infallibility. Except in the diocese of Montreal, there was no part ot Canada in which the Ultramontane contagion had pro- duced much, if any, visible effect before the promuI"-a- I 'I 4 RUMK L\ CASADA. tion of the Vatican {Icciccs. The episcopal assault on the Inslitiit Cdiiddicii had commenced several years b<;fore. Liberal journals had been denounced by the Jiishop of Montreal, and he had refused to admit that laymen had any right to liberty of o})inion. But at this time iJishop Uourget, the leader of the Ul- tramontane movement in Lower Canada, had neither the sympathy nor theconci'rrence of his episcopal colleaj^'ues. The palace of ti.^ .* 'chbishop of Ouebcc was still the lin- gering refuge of Gallicanibiu, and the other bishops were far more in sympathy with tJic -Archbishop than with the l^ishop of Montreal. It is undeniable that the Roman Catholic Bishops of Quebec had, at different times, raised their voices on questions of political or national interest; but in doing so they acted in perfect accord with the national instincts, and aided the Government in periods of national crisis. Such action on their part is clearly distinguishable from the modern assertions of the right of the Church of Rome to control political elections in her own interest. On the breaking out of the war of 1812, Bish' d Plessis en- couraged the spirit of volunteering ; when the rebellion reared its head in Lower Canada, Bishop Lartigne, oi Montreal, condemned the revolt in a pastoral which he ordered to be read in all the parish churches. In 1868 Bishop Bourget denounced the Fenians as a secret society, and instructed the priests to refuse them the sac- raments unless they renounced their connection with the order. This, of course, was net done from any national or political motive, but in deference to a rule of the Church under which all secret societies come under con- demnation. It is quite true that the Government welcomed the aid I of the Bishops on these several occasions ; but only moral blindness could lead any one to confound these acts of PREMOXFTIOS^S OF THE STRUGGLE. 5 the r>ishops with the attempts which the} now make to obtain al)sohitc control of pohtical elections, by (Hrecting electors how to vote, and hoUlin}^ over their heads the menace of the retnsal of the sacraments as the penalty of disobedience. While Canada was nndcr the French dominion, the principles of the Galilean Chnrch, thonj^di not always free from assault, were practically predominant in the colony. When Canada fell under the dominion of a Protestant crown, it was inevitable that the new subjects of England should draw nearer to Rome. Out of a religion which was proscribed in the mother country, nothing bearing the Eend)lance of a national Cliurrh could be formed, in the new'} acquired colony. While the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was accorded in the very terms of the capitulation, attempts continued to be made, for many years, to prevent the exercise within the colony of any authority centred in Rome. But, one bv one, the restraints which had been imposed, for what wsre considered prudential reasons, were removed, and the authority of Rome came in time to be far greater in the British than it had ever been in the French colony. But the time came, after the publication of the Sylla- bus, and especially after the promulgation of the Vatican decrees, when the fullest liberty and the most perfect equality no longer sufficed for the Church of Rome. She now claims religious dominance and political control. These pretensions will certainly be rnet, as they deserve to be, with determined resistance. In this contest, it will be desirable as much as possible to distinguish the dogmatic from the civil aspect of the question. But this is not always possible. There are many cases in which the two are inextricably blended. Intolerance, or a, denial of the right of any other form of •it- 6 ROME IN CANADA. religion than that of Rome to public celebration, is a dogma which strikes at the root of civil liberty. When a jierson who has received Christian baptism outside of the Church of Rome i > told that he is bound by the de- ; crees of the Congregation of the Index and ol the Inqui- sition, and that he is not at liberty to read a book treat- ing of law or philosophy without special permission ol the Pope, he feels that this is a theory which, if it could be enforced, would deprive him of one of his most cher- ished rights. When a person who has been married ac- cording to the laws of the land 's told that, according to the dogma of the Church of Rome, he is living in a state of concubinage, and is bound to separate from his wife, he sees that those who hold this doctrine only want the power, not the will, to do him a grievous injury. If those who make loud profession of these dogmas could grasp in their hands the whole political power of the country, what guarantee would remain for the main- tenance of the rights and liberties of the rest of the pop- ulation ? In this refusal of Rome to reconcile herself to civiliza- tion and modern progress, there are those who see grave dangers : the elements of a contest between medieval ec- clesiasticism and the civilization of the nineteenth cen- tury. Others admit themselves to be so morally purblind as not to be able to recognize the danger. A man would be accounted wilfully imprudent who, if threatened every day with the deprivation of his liberty or his life on the first favourable opportunity, failed to take reasonable pre- cautions against the threat being carried into effect. The Ultramontanes of Quebec, by a systematic plan of attack upon the old moderate, reasonable, tolerant, and respectable Gallicans, have already obtained the advan- tages of having had the last word, and are joyously hug- ging the conviction that there is not moral courage III PREMONITIONS OF THE STRUGGLE. 7 enough left in that section of the ecclesiastics and their ad- herents, whom they have treated as enemies, to renew the deience. To trace the difference between the New School — as tl.e late Bishop of Montreal calls it — and the old will be equally interesting and instructive. The resignation of Bishop Bourget is an event to which too much significance might easily be attached. Scarcely voluntary, it was eagerly accepted at Rome. The Bishop's imprudence could not be denied, and the neces- sity of allowing him to give place to another was clear. Complaint had been made at Rome that the policy of the episcopate, led by Bishop Bourget, would, if continued, prove disastrous to the Church. There is no reason to suppose that Bishop Bourget had done anything that was distasteful to Rome. But his manner of doing many things was unfortunate. Prudence counselled the accep- tance of his resignation. But it was desirable to let him fall as easily as possible. In ceasing to be Bishop of Montreal, he acquired the title of Archbishop of Martin- opolis (Mesia). The empty title was a poor exchange for the real power ; and his admirers will sympathize with the late Bishop under the effect of a blow which seemed to have a stunning and might have a fatal effect. His whole life had been given to the service of Rome ; it had been one of almost heroic devotion and constant sac- rifice ; and his friends evidently think it was a poor return that he got for all that mortal man can give. In vain did Bourget's friends in the priesthood try to re- cover the lost ground : to induce the Papal Court to recall the acceptance of the resignation. The Court of Rome found it necessary to dissemble for a moment. The Arch- bishop of Quebec about this time issued a mandemcnt, in which he, in effect, condemned everything the united episcopate of the Province had done for the past three il- 'Hi ROME IN CANADA. years. The priests of his diocese he forbade voluntarily to interfere in elections. His pastoral read like an ar- raignment of the fifth Council of Quebec, and a condem- nation of the joint action of the episcopate dating back no further than the previous September. Has Rome, people asked, really commanded a halt in the Province of Quebec ? Has the Archbishop power to tear up the joint letter of the episcopate, at the head of the signatures to which stood his own name ? Fear not, the re-assurance of the clerical organs ran : the joint let- ter, which obliges the priests to interfere in election^, and to enforce their interference with the terrible sanc- tion? of their holy office, remains in full force and vigour. At this juncture the Archbishop of Quebec re-appeared upon ti\e sc^ne, to volunteer an explanation. His mande- ment of May 5, 1876, did not supersede the collective letter of September 22, 1875. To the truth of the princi- ples of the lettei he was a witness; and these principles, which were but a development of the decrees of t' fourth and the fifth Councils of Quebec, his mandementleft intact. Between the two mandements he found no contradiction. All he intended was to put his clergy on their guard against overstepping certain boundaries in the exercise of rights long since prescribed by competent authority. The collective pastoral 'vas addressed to all Catholics in the Province ; his mandement was intended to enlighten the electors on certain duties which it fell to them to per- form on occasion of political elections. It remains true, nevertheless, that the instructions of the two documents are as wide as the poles asunder. The truth seems to be that the Archbishop felt called upon to say something to satisfy the exigency of the moi lent, though there was no real intention greatly to alter the policy previously pursued ; and when he found he was taken at his word, he had to explain that that PREMONITIONS OF THE STRUGGLE. word was without meaning. We need not therefore ex- pect any real change of conduct ca tlie part of tlie Roman Catholic clergy of Quebec as a consequence of the resig- nation of Bishop Bourget, or any hint from Rome on which the Archbishop may have acted when he penned his pastoral letter of May 5. Pius IX. has, in fact, since upheld the bishops in the ground they took in their joint letter of September, 1875. There is probably no country in the world, unless it be Belgium, in which the Ultramontanes raise their demands so high as in the Province of Quebec. The City of Que- bec, the mother of sixty dioceses, enjoys at Rome tlie dis- tinction of being considered the metropolis of the Roman Catholic religion in North America.'^ The New France of other days occupies, in that part of the world, a posi- tion not dissimilar to that of the eldest son of the Church in Europe. Quebec is proud of the pre-eminence, and seems resolved that no rival shall supplant her in the affections of the Holy See, if blind obedience to papal authority bring its due reward. In Quebec, the Ultra- montanes are attempting to occupy all the avenues that lead to power, secular as well as^ecclesiastical. One por- . ' tion of the press they aim to control, the other to silence. They claim the direction of political elections, and they demand immunity for their political acts, because these acts are performed under the shadow ot the sanc- tuary. Such a career of aggression, pursued with un- flagging persistency, was sure to provoke opposition. No one therefore wa;s surprised when, some months ago, a public man, reading the signs of the times, declared that a great battle between Ultramontanism and the defenders of the citadel of civil liberty was about to be fought in Canada. ♦ RuU of Pius IX., May 15, 1876, canonically erectint; the University of Lava', Quebec. lO ROME IN CANADA. The battle has already opened. The right of the clergy to exercise undue influence over elections has been con- tested in the civil tribunals, and the attacks which are made upon other forms of immunity — especially the im- ' munity from municipal taxation which Church property enjoys — show on what line the next battle will be fought. The Church of Rome is all but omnipotent in Quebec, and to obtain over her, when she confronts the civil power in a hundred ways, more than partial victories, varied by defeats, will probably long be impossible. A repressive policy, in the shape of a revival of old, restrictive laws, is neither possible nor desirable. But it would be rash to say that there is no conceivable case in which it might not be the duty of the State to protect itself by a rigid enactment against the assaults of Rome on its authority. Protestant leagues, or Protestant and Liberal alliances, would, if resorted to as remedies, probably do more harm than good. There seems to be but one hope ; and that is, that the people on whom the weight of clerical domina- tion falls with greatest force, finding the burden intoler- able, will make a supreme effort to cast it off. But the time when that effort can be made has not yet come. Among Roman Catholics in Ontario there is, so far as I have been able to learn, no sympathy with the arrogant ' pretensions of the Quebec Ultramontanes ; and not one educated Roman Catholic out of a hundred in the former Province is even aware of the extremes to which the episcopate of the latter has gone. ■\",\ II. THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. While the din of the battle between the old Gallicans and the New school of Ultramontanes in Quebec is ringing in our ears, the successful party is revelling in the arrogance of victory, and claiming for Rome the rig'^'t to set its foot on the neck of the State. It is my purpose to trace the origin and progress of this contest ; to ex- amine the weapons which the aggressors have brought into play ; to show how the Jesuits and priests who formed the entourage of the late Bishop of Montreal have trailed in the dust the reputations of dignitaries of their own Church whom two generations of French Canadian Catholics had learned to revere, and whose sin was that they were sus- pected of desiring to retain some share of those ancient liberties which the teachings of the Syllabus and the de- crees of the Vatican Council threatened with annihilation. I shall show that this internecine war, which was in- tended to silence all opposition to Romish assumption in the bosom of the Canadian Church, was only a prelimin- ary step to the general assault upon the liberties of the nation. The Galilean element is reduced to silence ; but the Jesuits still perform the part of jailors over the prostrate forms of the liberal members of their own Church whom they have overcome. The ready jibe, the ungenerous taunt, of these jailors smite our ears with their harsh accents. But while these aggressive Ultra- montanes hold their prisoners with one hand, they assail liberty, in all its forms, so hateful to them, vvith ihe other. Bishop Bourget boasts the formation of a 'New School ' in Quebec, who find their dr.ty and their plea- ■\ v:. 12 ROME IN CANADA. I liilii If i ii iiti||||.' ill sure in unlimited devotion to the Pope ; who accept with- out question all his teachings ; who approve of ever3'thing he approves, and condemn everything he condems ; who reject liberalisn, philosophy, Caesarism, rationalism, and other errors which are described as gliding like venomous serpents in all ranks of society. This school, he adds, comprises a good number of Catholics of mark in the vari- ous degrees of the social hierarchy, especially yjung men. Among the latter are distinguished the Pontifical Zouaves, whom no ties of international obligation prevented being organized in Canada. The devotees of the new school are described as belonging to good families, and being fitted by their talents and their knowledge to appear to advan- tage in the salon, to shine in the literary circle, and to make their way to important positions in the State. In a few years, it is predicted, their number will increase, and they will be strong enough, by the aid of the Church, to force open the doors of the legislature and to take pos- session of the judicial bench. When that day ol triumph arrives, the obnoxious Code dcs Cnn's, written by the Judge Baudry, will cease to be recognized as an authority in the courts ; and another wish of Bishop Bourget, and one which is dear to his heart, will have been gratified. The voice of Rome will find an echo within the walls of the Canadian Parliament, in the judicial tribunals, in the legal opinions of the bar, at the hustings and in the lecture room, in school and college, everywhere. The Bishop has not explained how it will be possible to educate lawyers when Pothier shall have been banished from the University of Laval, and all the other text-books of Galilean authors which have been honored with a place in the Index shall have been burnt. The Bishop of Birtha, the right hand of the late Bishop of Montreal, who acted as administrator of the diocese in the absence THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 13 of Mj,'r. Bourgct, laments that it is a very rare thing to find an advocate qui ecritala lumiore dc la foi. The Hght of dogma would prove a will-o'-the-wisp to one destined to pursue the career of civil law. This school, though still young, is old enough to have made its mark ;* and it has undeniably made great pro- gress during the last four years. By means of an impla- I cable war, through journals founded at the instance of Bishop Bourget, against the liberal element in the Catholic Churcii, it has obtained its first victory ; it boasts of suc- cesses secured through its influence on the courts of justice, and of having successfully combated the rights of the State by the learning and eloquence of the forum. Bishop Bourget encouraged the stud)' of the writers of this school, and the sound of his applause formerly mingled with the anathema which struck the directors of journals which propagated — we cannot write the word in the pre- sent tense — innuvais pnncipcs ; that is, journals which de- fended the assailed rights of the civil authority. Much is expected from M. Pagnuelo's attack upon Caesarism ; in other words, upon the rights of the State, the head of which monstrous serpent the good virgin is expected to crush with her immaculate heel.f The writers on whom Bishop Bourget showers his ap- plause form a motley crowd of journalists, pamphleteers, and authors of more pretensions ; priests, Jesuits, bishops, attaches of the Nojiveau Monde and the Franc-Parleur. * For the programme of the Ultramontane party, see a Circulaire au clerge, by Bishop IJourset, concernant un ouvrage intitule etudes hiptoriques et li'gales sur la liberti' religieuse en Canada, 'par M. I'Avocat S. Pagnuelo, March ig, 1S72. t Ces Etudes combattent directment le Casariame ; que est se second monstre veni- meux que le St. Sii'ge signala, le 9 Drc, 1854, 11 I'attention et au zile d'environ deux cents Cardiiiaux, Patriarches, Archeveques et EvOques, rOuni a Rome pour la memor- able solcmnite de la definition dogmatique de I'lmmaculee Conception de la glorieuse Viergc Marie Mrre de Dieu. Esperons, que cette Vierge, bonne et puissante, ecra- sera de son pied immacule la tete de ce monstreux serpent, qu' se glisse dans toutes les societes, pour la boulverser de fond en tcmb'e.— Bishop Bourget, Ciiculaire, March, 9 1S72. 'I SJ ,., t ! H ROME IN CANADA. m 11; Witl'in the last four years they have produced a pyra- mid ofworthless but not innocuous literature, which pro- bably contains not less than a hundred separate publica- tions, all iii the French languapje, and varying in size from the small pamphlet to the heavy octavo. Sometimes the authors write anonymously, and sometimes un- der their own signatures ; some hide themselves under the anonymous veil for a while, and when they throw asidr. the screen to ac':ept, in their own persons, the ap- plause of the New School, it not unfrequently happens that a priest or a bishop stands revealed. Through this process Alp. Villeneuve, one of the most furious assailants of thi. liberal section of the Catholic clergy that has ever appeared in the bosom of the Church, and the Bishop of Birtha, who undertook to ir struct members of Parlia- ment in their duty, both went. It is my intention to bring under the eyes of the reader several of the works which have been ushered into the world with the direct approbation or the tacit consent of the late Bishop of Montreal. Their authors proclaim the sacred duty of intolerance ; and the mildest of them insist that the dogma of intolerance must never be sur- rendered.* Some of them admit exceptions founded on" necessity, such as the inability of the Church of Rome to compel the civil power to suppress all other forms of reli- gion ; i' but their libera) ity and moderation are tieated by the aggressive party as a scandal and an error which place them in rebellion to the See of Rome, t The writers who ; ike part in thi - 'implacable war' boldly assert that Protestantism 'las no rigiits ; that it is ♦ L'Abbe Paquet, docteur en theologio et professeur a la f.iculte ue thiiologie, a Universite Laval. La Libiralisme. + In this catego.y are Vicar-General Raymond (L'Eglise et I'Etat) of St. Hya- cinthe, and Abbe Paquet. t Rinan. Broc. An.^n. The style of this writer, and his mode ol attacli, have a striking resemblance to tiiose of the I'isuit priest Braiin. THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL 15 war it it is not even a relifjion ; tliat it is the embodiment of error and rebellion, neitlier of which can have any rights; ' rebellion whicli owes the duty of repentance and submis- sior. to the Church. The doctors of the New School teach that the laws of the Church are universal, and are binding on heretics ; § and that no one, Catholic or Protestant, has a right to read any book, of any kind, without the special per- mission of the Bishop ; and that leave to peruse a pro- hibited book can only be given when the object of perusal is a preparation lor refuting the author. They teach that the Church has a divine power over ' Christian marriage ; li that every lay judge who pretends that he has a right to decide matrimonial causes incuis fcnuHiema ; that a marriage which the Canadian Parlia- ment assumes to annul for adultery, remains after the sentence ol divorce has been pronounced in full force ; and that the children of either the man or the woman born of a second marriage contracted according to the laws of the land are illegitimate. It was an article of the Gallican liberties that no eccle- siastic should presume to cc^nsure or anathematize a lay judge for any decision he had given ; but Father Braiin tells us that the Council of Trent had saved him the trouble. He forgets to add that France never accepted the decrees of the Council of Trent in matters of eccles- iastical policy or disciplinf*. The crusade of the late Bishop of Montreal was directed against every branch of the civil power, legislative, execu- tive, and judicial ; and included the intimidation of the judiciary. In one of his pastorals he attacked the Code dcs Cures, and called upon the clergy to assist him in pre- § Braiin. Institutes Dogmatiques. I! Br«iin, rp, 33,59, and 55. x6 HOME IN CANADA. •M vciitiii^( its l)cing accepted as authority in the ci\il tri- bunals. For a hundred years and more after the conquest it was usual to defend the rights of the Roman Catholic Church l)y appeals to the capitulation of Montreal, to the treaty of cession, to the Quebec Act, to the Jildicts and Ordinances, the Arn'ts of the Superior Council (;f Que- bec, during the French Dominion. They were held to contain the charter of the liberties of the Catlu^lic Church in French Canada. Tliey are still sometime? appealed to, but with an infrequency which is constantly becoming greater. The professors of that New School, whose rise and growth liave been so rapid and so great, would joy- fully burn half of them to-morrow. Some the New Sciiool would hud it convenient to retain, and they have many ingenious contrivances for getting rid of such as stand in IIk; way ol tiieir plans of aggression. Tlie Edicts and Ordinances have l)cen codified, a .d tlie Code is acknowledged at Rome to l^e the most Romish Code of which any country can boast the possession ; ' • at least, any country in which tiie Church of Rome ' not strong enough to exclude tlie open profession of any ot'.ier form of religion. If, in any case, the Code seems to be less favourable tu ilHy prehMision the New School may make, it rejects the code and falls back on the original instruments; if it seems to give more, the New School accepts the Code as having superseded the Edicts and Ordinances. If neither will suit, the New School dis- covers that a new custom has superseded both. But this stage of the conti'oversy may almost be said to liave been passed. The New School finds in the Syl- / labus and the Vatican decrees the infallible rule of truth. Against infallibility nothing can stand; it cuts short all argument ; there is nothing left but the duty ol obe- ♦ Vicar-General Raymond. THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. »7 dience. Any one, we read in tho modern gospel of the New School, who does not obey all commands of the Pupc without question, is no longer a Catholic. -f Fortunately, as it may yet prove, there are some things to which the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty cannot legally consent. If they could, there is every rea- son to believe the authority of the Inquisition would now be recognized in Quebec. It was partly because the de- crees of the Congregation of the Index had not been in force, and the authority of the Inquisitior had never been recognized, in Canada, that the New School lost its suit in the Guibord case. The Lords of the Privy Coun- cil tell us, in their decree, that " since the passing of the 13 Geo. HI., c. 83, which (s. 5.) incorporates the istof Elizabeth, the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen could not legally consent to be bound by such a rule " as the Church was seeking to enforce. But it is far from being certain that the same object cannot be attained by a side-wind. The Bishops have obtained a reinforcement of power since the decree of the Priv}' Council was rendered : a dozen lines put into the shape ol an Act of the Quebec Legislature, and giving them the power to say in which part of the cemetery any one shall be buried — the consecrated or the unconse- crated part — a power which, if it had existed before, would have given the Church of Rome the victory in the Guibord trial. The Bishops have now all the power which the adoption of the decrees of ^he CiMigregation of the Index and the recognition o<' .c, authority of the In- quisition by the civil power CvUi a give them. They can excommunicate a person for the crime of possessing a , prohibited book ; they can, for the same crime, refuse ab- solution and the right of burial in the consecrated part of the cemetery. In any case they could do no more. t Binan. ': t'Y Ilil rl . x8 ROME IN CANADA. Several of the Canadian bishops seconded the aggres- sive policy of the Court of Rome with rchictancc ; some of them even showed signs of resistance at first. The late Archbishop of Oiiebec republished the celebrated letter of Mgr. Dupanloup, IHshop of Orleans, on the Vatican Council and distributed it among his clergy. Vicar-Cicneral Ca/eau shared the liberal sentiments of the Archbishop, and resisted, as far as it was prudent — farther, as the event proved — the policy of aggression. Vicar-General Raymond, one of the great lights of the Catholic Church in Ouebcc, and whose literary labours in its behalf are not ecpialled by any other ecclesiastic, pleadetl for moderation, as the safest policy for the Church. The clergy, as a body, would have preferred to continue to li\ c in peace with the rest of the population. But the New School of ecclesiastics, who had adopted opinions of the latest pattern from Rome, woidd not stand quietly by in presence of what tliey deemed a scandal so great as this indifference, this semi-opposition, this pesti- lent moderation. Its band of journalists, pamphleteers, playwrights, orators, and the allied Jesuits, made a con- certed attack upon the offenders. They showed their re- spect for episcopal authority — a virtue on which they never ceased to insist — when Bishop Bourget resolved on dividing the parish of Montreal and virtually confis- cating the property of the Sulpicians, by violent assaults on the Archbishop of Quebec, the Primate of Lower Can- ada. To his Vicar-General they meted out similar treat- ment; and for the Vicar-General ot St. Hyacinthe their deadliest hostility was reserved. One of the priests who formed the entourage of the late Bishop of Montreal, Alp. Villeneuve, wrote a comedy of between five and six hundred pages, and laid the scene in the palace of Pandemonium in hell. Thither he dragged bishops, priests, statesmen — all who opposed the disniem- THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 19 hermcnt ot the parish ot" Montreal, or questioned the right of the Church of Rome to usurp the functions of the State in the formation of parishes. A layman, Hon. M. Dessaulles, answered La Comedie [ii/ffiuiU', with considerable effect, though perhaps not al- together in the most judicious way; when Bishop Bour- get, who had enjoyed in silence the acting of Villeneuve's infernal play, at once swooped down upon his critic, and, usurping the functions of the Congregation ot the Index, forbade anyone to read the reply, or to possess a copy of it, without leave from him, or to possess it at all for any other purpose than to refute it. The battle now raged along the whole line ; but the defenders of the ancient citadel fought with their hands tied. Jesuit spies stood ready to report any utterance on their part which would be unwelcome at the Vatican ; and free speech was branded as a crime. The fierce onslaught of the Ultramontaneson whatever was respected and respectable among the old Canadian ecclesiastics bears a sinister resemblance to th'^t made upon Port Royal by the Jesuits two centuries ago. The victory remained with the Jesuits ; and from Port Royal were driven its old inmates, by whom, whatever their faults, it had been made famous. But in those days the Jesuits, instead of writing comedies in which ecclesiastics are made to play a discreditable part in Pandemoniiua, made it the great sin of Racine's life that he had given to the world his immortal plays. To the remains of Mo- iiore, the great French comedian, a grave was refused in consecrated ground, until the King softened the bishop into allowing a private burial to take place under cover of darkness. But then Moliure did not show the world Archbishops and Vicars-General inspired by the breath of demons. The gradual renewal of the episcopate will do much Hji!'*! p ;< .1 Ii ill Hi I I ' il ill 20 ROME IN CANADA. temporarily to realize the aims of the New School. Only Ultramontanos will be selected when a bishopric becomes vacant. A bishop who shows any lingering signs of a recalci- trant spirit, and neglects to die, may be made as unhappy as his enemies could well wish to see him. He may have at his side a coadjutor, with the right of future succession, waiting for his vacant shoes, and daily doing things which may put into his superior's head the thought of re- signation as a means of escape from an intolerable tor- ment; for for bishops there is a kind of ecclesiastical Chiltern Hundreds. By this ingenious process. Bishop Pinson- neault, of London, became Bishop of Birtha, and remov- ed to Montreal, where he fell into all the plans of Bishop Bourget. It is doubtful whether the late Archbishop of Quebec ever gave a hearty assent to the Vatican decrees. As late as May, 1872, when asked for a puff episcopal of Pagnuelo's Liberie Religieusc en Canada, of which the Bishop of Montreal could not find words strong enough adequately to describe the merits, the Archbishop, frankly expressing his opinion of works of this kind, wrote: 'There is danger of taking for absolute trutii what is matter of opinion : what the Church uas not thouglit proper to condemn, is sometimes ill-spoken of ; the ideal of what ought to be tends to cause the reality to be forgotten ; a future looked forward to with impati- ence, the real past and the difficulties of the present not being sufficiently taken into account.' The Archbishop evidently had misgivings about the discretion of M. Pagnuelo's zeal which he tried to con- ceal ; and yet this writer is one of the most respectable and the least aggressive of the New School. The New School teaches that the Church of Rome alone lias the right to say whether the decrees of the Council of Trent are in force in any particular country ;* 11, THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. ar though these decrees, so far as they related to discipline, were rejected by the Government of France and never allowed to take effect in Canada. The New Sci:ool teaches what is not new, and what only slaves can accept as true : that the Church has the power to depose sovereigns and to release subjects from their oath of allegiance.f The New School teaches that the Roman Catholic episcopate of Canada is as much above the civil power as the supernatural is superior to the natural ; that the Pope is the Church ; and that the Church contains the State ; that every human being is subject to the Pope ; that the Pope has the right to command the obedience of the king, and to control his armies ; that the civil author- ity can place no limit to the ecclesiastical power ; and that it is a ' pernicious doctrine ' to allege that it has the right to do so ;| that to deny the priests the right to use their spiritual authority to control the elections is to exclude God from the regulation of human affairs ;§ that civil laws which are contrary to the pretensions of Rome are null and void ; and that the judiciary has no power to interpret the true sense of laws so passed, which are, in fact, not laws at all ;|| that civil society is inferior to the Church ; and that it is contrary to the natural order of m r 'tm * Bishop Bourget. Lettre Pastorale concerning la Sepulchre de Joseph Guibord, Oct. 3, 1875. ■f A Ouimet, in a note to the pibces justificatives ol La Comcdie Infcrnalc, says of a Sulpician priest who had expressed a different opinion : ' It may be seen by this phrase that M. Bedard, in spite of his clear mind, had not entirely free himself of the ideas current at St. Sulpice, Montreal. If he had had the happiness to li^ c in a more Catholic society, he would not have doubted the right of the Pope to depose sovereigns, as the Church teaches.' J Mgr. de Rimouski. Lettre au clergesecuHer et regulier ct aux fidoles du diocose, issued on the occasion of the late Provincial elections in Quebec. § Sermon de La Grandeur Monseigneur A. Pinsonneault, Evrque de Hirtha, pro- nonce dans I'Eglise de St. Henri des Tanneries, Dimanche, le 4 Juillet, JS75. II M. R. Lefranc. Les influences indues dans le Comtc de Montmagny, I5tl- Sept., 1875. -22 ROME IN CANADA. things to pretend that, the Church., can be cited before the civil tribunals ; as if Pope Pius IX., in the concordat with Austria, had not agreed that the secular judges should have cognizance of the civil causes of clerks, such as contracts, debts, and the right of succession to private property. The New School is too avaricious of power to be satis- fied with the tremendor influence which the pulpit and the confessional place at its disposal. It turns the altar into a tribune, and seeks to wield the power of the period- ical press. The late Bishop of Montreal knew how to use, as well as to curb, the press. In 1854, ^^ recommended the set- ting up of a journal to propagate * sound principles' (les bons pyincipes), and he foresaw that it would be more effective and would excite less prejudice if conducted by laymen, than if known to be excl-jsively in the hands of priests. But both priests and bishops figure among the contributors of the journals whose mission it is to dis- seminate les bons pyincipes. Even when these journals are written by laymen, the effective control is admitted to be in the hands of priests.* And the whole clerical army is under the supreme control of Rome. Bishop Bourget has given a vivid picture of the liberal press, t ■ The ' liberal journal,' he says, ' is that which pretends to be liberal in its religious and political opin- ions.' ' No one,' he adds, 'is allowed to exercise freedom in his religious or political opinions ; it is for the Church to teach its children to be good citizens, as well as good Christians. In teaching them the true principle of faith and morals, of which she alone is the depository . . . her mission is to teach sovereigns to govern with wisdom, and subjects to obey with joy.' * Bishop Bourget. Circulaire ii Mai, 1850. i Fioretti Vescovili. :l ll^ THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 93. 1 he Bishop arrives at the conclusion ' that every journal which pretends to be free in its religious and political opinions is in error ; ' ar.d that * liberty of opinion is no- thing else than the liberty ol error, which causes the death of the soul, which can only live by truth ; ' ' thus,' he adds, 'every journal which professes liberty of opin- ions causes its readers to walk in the ways of error, which conducts society, as well as individuals, to ruin and to death.' Sometimes Bishop Bourget directs his maledictions against a particular journal which has presumed to use the liberty he condemns. Twice he denounced Le Pays.* Its offence was, that it had applauded Victor Emanuel ; had expressed opinions similar to those found in the Paris Siecle, liberal opinions in fact ; that its Paris correspon- dent desired to secithe whole of Italy put under Victor Emanuel; that it had published the proclamations of that chief of rebels, Garibaldi, and done a great many other for- bidden things. In Le Pays the right of theatrical criticism, if not condemnatory, was denied, though thrt privilege can be indulged with immunity- by journals which defend les bons principes and are recognized as arms of the Church militant ; and the Jesuit priests give additional proofs of piety by opening a theatre, provided with stage and scenery, in the basement of their church, in Rue Beaudry, Montreal. The professed object is the cultivation of music ; but as a matter of fact tragedies and even come- dies are there put on the stage. The clergy were told that it was their duty to use every means to prevent Le .'^ays seducing the faithful committed to their care. The hint was acted upon, and their persistent opposition finally made it necessary to bring the career of the liberal journal to a close. The National^ a journal of pale and almost neutral tint,, * Supplement au mandement du 31 Mai, i860. Circulaire 31 Mai, i860. M «4 ROME IN CANADA. lias survived a denunciation publicly made in the Cathe- dral of St. Hyacinthe, for having presumed to question the wisdom of observing so many days' fast in Lent. It is not probable that this journal will ever again be hon- oured in the same way. It now disclaims all sympathy with the Liberals anu iuil de Quebec iiad been guilty of the offence of contending, in opposi- tion to the Ultramontanes, that 'the citizens have the right and are at liberty to express their opinions, on political subjects, by tongue or pen, or in any other way, without having their rights interfered with by the ecclesiastica authorities.' The Vicar-General confounded the audacious journal- ist, pointing triumphantly to the Encyclical of December 8th, 1864. That free discussion is a natural and impre- scriptible right, this ecclesiastic brands as a false assump- tion ; and he asks, with the air of a man who feels that he is crushing his adversary, ' If you ask so much liberty for yourself, why refuse to the priest the rights of the citizen ? ' But this was precisely what the journal had not done. It had denied the right of priest to interfere with the * Lettre de M. le Grand Vicar Langevin aux M. le Rddacteur du 'Jonriial deQui- bee, 23 Aotlt, 1876. !1 ■i.i ■m f iiii 1 1' 30 ROME IN CANADA. free choice of the electors, by exerting the influence of his sacred office and the bringing to bear terrors of spiritual censure ; but it distinctly admitted his right, as a citizen, to express his opinion. The separation of the two char- acters is all but impossible, and the priest is at present not in mood to make the attempt. How a journal can be silenced by an abuse of the confessional, the public has been very frankly told. And the journal, which was warned by a rival of its impending fate, has, through the interference of the clergy, ceased to exist : died of en- forced inanition. 'If,' says the Courrier du Canada, a journalist in posses- sion of the papal benediction extending to the third gen- eration, * a penitent does ill by reading your journal (Le Dien Public, a rival in business and an opponent in poli- tics) do you imagine that, you can dictate to the confes- sor what he ought to do or not to do to this penitent ? He (the confessor) alone is judge whether he ought to bind or loose. It '^1 ood which has given him this power ; he must account to God, not to the civil law, for its use.' In this way the confessional may be abused ; and if it be impossible, as it probably is, to attach responsibility to a priest for his conduct, on account of the secrecy which of necessity enshrouds it, any journal might be ruined without ever being certain whence the blow came. But it is permissible to take notice of any external act ; and as it has become known +hat certain priests threatened to refuse the sacraments to readers of the Bien Public, they might be called on to justify — that is, show good reason for menaces they had given — in an action for slan- der. If the Courrier du Canada will examine its own file, it will find in its issue of May 25th, 1874, a letter from Vienna, headed La discussion des Lois Con/essionelles, con- THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 31 taininp: the statement that the Bishop of Stepischnegg had shown that 'la nouvelle loi mettrait I'Etat el I'Eglise sur le mi^me pied de guerre que les sont actualement dans la plupart des Etats Europeans.' M. Strenieyz, Minister of Public Instruction, said the Government intended strictly to enforce the law. This shows tiiat when the confessional has been abused, the result has been the en- actment of laws to afford citizens protection against that abuse. The Bien Public was very far from being extreme in opinion or violent in tone. It neither professed ' Catho- lic Liberalism,' nor made itself the apostle of the doc- trines of tlie 'liberal Catholics' of Europe. On these points it left no room for doubt. Its proprietor twice ap- plied to the eccleiastical authorities for directing guid- ance. He even withdrew an election protest, where he believed the election must have been voided on account of the exercise of undue influence of which there was proof on '•he part ol the clergy. But these acts of sub- mission and tokens of good will did not prevent the clergy from continuing to abuse the influence of their holy office by unduly interfering in elections. Against that abuse the Bien Public continued to protest. This was its offence ; this it was that brought down on it the opposi- tion of the clergy, and the faithful were enjoined not to read the offending journal. The prohibition proved fatal : the Bien Public ceased to exist. In such a state of things, free discussion is impossible. The prerogatives of the press and the rights of the electors alike become the prey of clerical tyrannj^ , An attempt was recently made to find whether, in ac. tual practice, a French Canadian journal which avoided religious questions could command liberty of discussion in the political sphere without falling down to worship the idol of party. With this view Le Reveil came into Mi: ■ i, A ',i;ijl 3S ROME IN CANADA. existence at Quebec. But no sooner had the prospectus appcarctl than the forthcoming journal was condemned bctore its birth, for its promise to avoid rehgious ques- tions. That the clerical journals spoke by the book was afterwards evident from the fact that the Archbishop of Quebec repeated this criticism. In a circular to the clergy of iiis diocese (August 13th, 1876), that functionary characterized the promised abstention, in a writer call- ing himself Catholic, as a species of apostacy, on the ground that ' the very nature of political, social, and edu- cational questions recalls the idea of religion.' In the very means which the founders of the Ri'veil took to escape the censures of the clergy — leaving the whole re- ligious field in their undisputed possession — the Arch- bishop espiod indications of an ,inti-rcligious tendency! With the official denunciation of Le Kcvc'il expired the last hope of a French Canadian journal engagmg in free political discussion without bringing down on it the wrath of the clergy. Their opposition soon proved the death of the Ri'veil. The Rrvvil had made itself the advocate of secular education, in which the Archbishop saw atheism. It was charged with having copied, without protest, something which made in favour of the development theorj-, known in these days as Darwinism ; it had copied a remark of Castelar which enshrined the error that Jt is possible for a man to be religious without being either Protestant or Catholic. But the real offence of the speech was its advo- cacy of tolei alien. Judged by a decree of the fourth Coun- cil of Quebec, Lc Rcveil had taken rank among /fs mativais jonrnanx. Nothing remained for the Archbishop to do hut to instruct each priest to find out whether the offending journal was read in his parish ; and, if any of the parish- oners had, in the past, been guilty of reading it, to inter- dict them from repeating the offence. |.. !l THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. li Necessarily the interdict was confined to the diocese of Quebec. The proprietor of the interdicted journal at once made preparations for moving to Montreal ; but not before making a courageous and masterly response, to which reference will be hereafter made. The tide of in- tolerance has hitherto run higher in the diocese of Mon- treal than in that of Quebec ; but, in spite of years of re- pression, thought is likely sooner to assert its freedom in the city to which Le Reveil moved than in that from which it fled before the anathema of the Archbishop. Only fifteen numbers had been issued when the denuncia- tion was made ; so short is the impunity allowed to free discussion by a Quebec journalist whose mother tongue is French. ' To a Canadian Bishop,' says M. Buies, the condemn- ed editor, * for a journal to commit the crime of being born without permission, appeared so extraordinary, and even provoking, that you (addressing the Archbishop) could nul fail to find in it an anti-religious tendency.' Such a tendency it would not, we venture to say, be pos- sible for an impartial judge to discover. The writers and orators of the New School show their zeal in propagating les bons principes, by daily giving ut- terance to the most detestable sentiments. Even advo- cates whose minds are formed by the study of Gallican authors can sometimes be transformed into ardent Ultramontanes ; a fact which attests the growth of the New School. M. Charles Thibault may be taken as one of the most brilliant examples.* ' The crime of our epoch,' he finds to consist in many things: 'The want of union,' pre- sumably among French Canadians ; ' in indifference ; in * Discourse de M.Charles Thibault, ucr.,avocat. En ri'por.,e iilasari-J desancieiis eli'ves du Petit Seminaire de Ste. Marie de Monnoir, le 13 Oitobrw-, 1875, a la fete des 'Nocesd'Or' du fcndatur de ce Petit Si'minaire, le UOv. T. Crevicr, V.-G., du ..io- cvse de St. Hyacinthe, ^*i;i \l m B ■<■[■■ \ i.^i : ■;?' w <■ (,, ' ■ i.. K ■ ) - 1 " • 1 1 1 t : 1 i i i i t 1 * \ .1 1 1 ' m 1. m: I ■ i': i I 3 ROME IN CANADA. entering into pactions with evil ; in consenting to argue with it, which is compromising ; in the toleration of error, and placing it on a footing of equality with the truth,' as it is in the Church of Rome ; ' in forgetting that liberty of a creature consists, as Bonaldsays, in the faculty of reach- ing the natural object of its being. Finally, the evil ol our epoch is that it has lost sight of the imprescriptible rights of the Church, and the duties which the State owes to it.' The New School wishes to remedy all this. And when that remedy comes, where will modern civilization be ? Of soldiers necessary for the present combat AI. Thi- bault finds a want, but he scarcely expects betterfromthe debased condition of modern society — of soldiers — yes, soldats — writers, orators, savants, men of letters. But why soldiers ? Pontifical Zouaves to restore the civil power ? That is the dream of the New School ; a dream that tells of nightmare. While efibrts are made to fasten on the minds of Italian children, by the use of rhyme, the prediction that the Pope will, in a short time, be at the head of an universal monarchy,* our Canadian Ultramontanes are urged to keep their armour bright. A journal published at Alon- treal, and founded more than five years ago, the Btd- letin Mensiul, is devoted to the restoration of the temporal power, .'t energetically opposed the enlistment bill, on the ground that it would be an impediment to the enrolment of Zouaves in favour of the Pope. This journal has a circulation of six hundred copies, and its writers show their zeal by giving their services gratuitously. Published with the avowed object of aiding the restora- tion of the temporal power, by inciting young French * Mr, Gladstone (Speeches of Pius IX.) gives the following example : Poco tempo ancora, e l^io Regnerii sul mondo intiero. ^ THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 35 Canadians to hold themselves ready once more to take up arms in favour of the Pope, the Bulletin Mensnel has had the extreme good fortune to receive the special bless- ing of Pius IX. It was founded by the members ol the Union Allet, which is under the control of the Jesuits. The Pontifical Zouaves of Canada, who have already once gone to Rome witli arms in their hands, and there joined the Papal troops in fighting against Italian unity, and to prop up the tottering temporal power, of which they witnessed the fall, are now ready to fight for the res- toration. In an address intended to be presented to Pope Pius IX. on the golden wedding of his episcopate, and drawn up three months in advance, they recall the fact that, some years ago, they had the happiness to serve his Beatitude ; and they sigh for the time when they will be again called upon to put on their ancient uniform, ' pour le triomphe . . . pour la revanche!' And they pray heaven that their wishes, in this respect, may be granted. When, in the year 1867, the recruiting of French Can- adians commenced, with a view of forming a battalion of Papal Zouaves, some of the Bishops openly applauded the movement. The Bishop of Montreal commended the 'noble project;' he showered upon it a heart-felt blessing and wished it complete success. The enrolment, in his eyes, shed glory on the c ^mtry and brought a ben- ediction on the inhabitants. The young men who were inveigled into this enrolment were told that they were going to fight for tlie principle on which humanity rested, and that the}^ were giving ' an admirable example of devotion to the Catholic cause.'* The true description of this setting on foot of an expe- dition to take part in an international quarrel in which Canada had no concern, j , that it was a flagrant breach of the duties of neutrality. * Bishop Bourget. Lettre Pastorale, D i ' 36 ROME IN CANADA. U ' '■ Religious women who spend their lives in Canadian cloisters were called upon by the voice of episcopal au- thority, which conveyed something of a command, to fur- nish military clothing for the Canadian Zouaves. A pro- mise was made, in the name of the Zouaves, that they would honour and respect the habiliments made by the virgin hands of the sisters of Christ, whom Bishop Bour- get flattered with the title of heroines.* This appeal was not without effect. In those cloister- ed solitudes, the walls of which are supposed to shut out the news of current events, the fair fingers of religious women were applied to the unwonted task of making sol- diers' clothes. The filibusters were flattered with the title of ' soldiers of Christ's Vicar,' and some of them were half persuaded that they were so many pious pilgrims about to set out for the tomb of the apostles witl' the view of delivering the holy land from the presence of the infidel. ' Soldier of the Pope' would always be a gloi-ious title in the estimation of true Christians. They were going, so they were told, to make charges brilliant and impe- tuous enough to vie with those made at Sebastopol and Solferino. The}' were conjured to devote themselves to the Pope and defend him valiantly. ' Once more,' Bishop Bourget concluded, 'go; but never forget that religion and the country expect that you will prove your- selves, everywhere and on all occasions, worthy of Can- ada, which has produced so man}' good Christians and valiant warriors.' Adding the benediction, in the name of the Trinity, the Bishop dismissec the filibusters on their sanguinary errand. f The Pope expressed his lively satisfaction at the acces- sion to his cause of the Canadian filibusters. Subscrip- ♦ Circulaire aux Religieuses, 8 D(!c,, 1867. + Allocution aux Zouaves Canadien a leur depart pour Rome, ig Fev., 1868 8' I m THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 37 tions for the cause which they had espoused were taken up everywhere, commencing in the convents and colleges, the example being set by children of both sexes to their parents and fellow-citizens, under what influence need not be told.* The appeals made to the Papal Zouaves of Canada to prepare to fight for the restoration of the temporal power is made to willing ears ; and when these disbanded fili- busters tell the Pope that they desire nothing so much as to be again called upon to take the field, there is no doubt they are in real earnest. They have been taught to be- lieve that the name Papal Zouave is a synonym for glory ; and the vanity w tiich the belief implies lias struck so deep that it will not be easily uprooted. t The sovereignty of the Church, so loudly insisted upon, implies the subordination of the State. These Ultramon- tane writers affirmiij: that any law passed by the civil power, with a view of preventing an abuse of ecclesiasti- cal authority, is null and void ; and that it would be the duty of the judges, if asked to interpret it, to refuse to re- cognize as a law what has no other tjian an imaginary ex- istence. If we allow the premises, that the Church is su- perior to the State, we must admit the conclusion; but Ultramontanism has ri )t yet been able to infli ^Uv. . opin- ion sufficiently to obtain a recognition of a cairn which implies the total destruction of civil liberty. Abbe Begin, a professor of the facult)'' oi theology in Laval University, teaches the students who are to become the future priests, bishops, and archbishops of Quebec that the doctrine which makes every human being sub- :| ,1 1 " ■ ■% : •■■ ■ \''-- 1 i ! * Bishop Bourget. Lettre Pastorale 8 Dec, 1867. \ J'ai prononcc ce mot les Zouaves pontificaux. Quelle pure ;;l(nre il rappelle ! — Mgr. Raymond, De I'lntjrvei, tion du Pretrc dans I'ordre intellectual et social. Lecture prononce devant 1 Union Catholique de St. Hyacintiie, le 8 Di'c, 1807. ; R. Lefranc, 15 Sept., 1875. 38 ROME IN CANADA. ject to the Popo is an absolute and eternal truth ; that the subordination of the temporal to the spiritual author- ity is clearly established ; and that of the two swords the spiritual is to be used by the Church, and the material for her benefit, and at her bidding.* The New School has indeed travelled far from the old landmarks of the Galilean libertie;, when it proclaims anew the monstrous maxims of Boniface VIII.. ' The Pope,' Abbo Bt'gin tells the students of Laval, 'is constituted, by Jesus Clirist himself, head of the Church Universal, and pastor of its flock : whence it follows that all without ex- ception, kings, princes, archbishops, bishops, etc., are subject to his spiritual authority.' This professor of the- ology accepts the assumption of Boniface VIII., that armies as well as kings are to move under the direction of the Church ; that the material sword ought to be sub- ordinate to the spiritual, since the spiritual power is in- contestibly superior in nobleness and dignity to every earthly power. ' It is certain,' he says, ' that Boniface clearly established the dependence and subordination of the civil to the religious authority ; ' ' that the secular power ought never to prevent the Church from attaining its end, and that it ought, in certain cases, to assist it in doing so ; ' that, in certain cases, 'the Pope has the right, which it is his duty to resume, to excommunicate kings, and to release their subjects from their oath of fidelity.' In the br.ll Uiiuiii Sa)ictuin, which, is the foundation of the claim of the Popes to depose sovereigns. Abbe Bc'gin finds an exposition of an ancient and divine right of the Roman Pontiffs, conformable to the teachings of the fathers of the Church : that the civil power is bound to defend and protect the Church. But we are not living in the middle ages, and there is ample evidence that a king excommunicated by Papal ♦ La Primaute et I'lnfalliDilitc des Souverains Pontifes, ■ill' THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 39 authority may still retain the allegiance of his subjects. Nevertheless we are not entitled to conclude that to in- stil into the minds of students, who are hereaiter to form the clerical army of Rome in the Province of Quebec, as an unquestionable and eternal truth, that there may be cases in which Roman Catholics are bound to obey the Pope in opposition to their own sovereign, has nut a per- nicious and dangerous tendency. And when the poison has once permeated the minds of the young clergy, what means are there of applying an antidote ? Will they be likely to accept a refutation of these doctrines, or even to listen to it ? Dr. Fessler, Secretary-General of the Vatican Council, attempted to reduce the bull Unum Sanctum to the nar- rowest limits ;* pursuing, in this respect, a policy in direct contradistinction to that of the Canadian Ultramon- tanes ; which shows that pretensions which would be rejected in Europe are expected to be readily accepted in Quebec. His reading of chis bull is : ' And this we de- clare, we say, we define, and we pronounce, that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he should be subject to the Roman Pontiff.' Fessler's book is issued with the express api -obation of Pius IX.: it follows that the Abbe Begin ] nore Papal than th Pope; though the difference bet en saying that all are, and that all ought to be, subject he Pope, is not great. The Archbishop ol Quebec se- ms to have had a suspi- cion that the abbe's work might ossibly have its imper- fections, as his qualified appr .tion, ' nihil obstat quin tyins mcndetur,' suggests. Fe: ler contends that the only words which contain a definition de fide in the bull Unum Sanctum are those quoted above. It follows that the New School which has been nursed into life in Quebec is more extravagant in its pretensions than the foremost defender * The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes. !:^^j 40 ROME IN CANADA. of Papa' authority in Europe, or even the Pope himself. Father Braiin also contends that ' the universal laws of the Church are obligatory on heretics ; ' and he holds it as a general principle ' that the Church has jurisdiction over all who have been baptized, and consequently over heretics ; ' for * though they are rebels ar 1 apostates who are outside of the Church, yet of right they belong to the Church. Their rebellion and apostacy do not free them from their (. ''gations of duty. The sheep which have strayed from the fold always belong to the master whom they have left. The soldiers who desert remain subjects of the prince whose flag they have deserted, and they will be judged according to the laws of the country.' Father Braiin quotes from Suarez, a great a MLhority with Ultra- montanes, to prove that heretics are always under the obligation to return to the bosom of the Church. Prudent Roman Catholic writers, in Europe, do not employ themselves in unceasing iteration of these revived pretenses. In Canada, the same prudential restraints which operate there are not felt. And yet the number of persons among us who are ready at an hour's notice to prove that the serpent which hisses so loudly has no poison in its sting is not small. The absolute subjection of the State to the Church is a well worn theme by writers of the New School. ' To be taught by the Church and receive from her the bap- tism of salvation,' says one of these writers,* ' it is neces- sary that the nations should submit themselves to the Church ; that they accept with docility the pre-eminence of her teaching authority. Nations are, therefore, bound to receive and obey the dogmatic and moral decrees of * Quelques Considerations sur les reponses de quelques thoologiens cic Quebec aux questions proposi'S par Mgr. de Montreal et Mgr. de Rimouski, etc., etc., etc., par la redaction du Franc-Parleur. For the publication of this brochure Adolphe Ouimet £ays he takes the entire responsibility, but it is evidently from the pen of a theologian. THE RISE OF THE NEW SCHOOL. 41 the infallible Church ; bound to listen to the teachings of the Church and obey its laws. Now, if the nations are bound to show this submission and docility toward the Church, is it not because they are subordinate, or because the Church has the right of pre-eminence over them ? It nations are subordinate to the Church in matters of authority, if the Church takes precedence of the nations in matters of authority, does she not do so in virtue of the fact that the Church is the head of the nation ? Jesus Christ did not say to his apostles : Go teach a part, a fraction, of the nation ; he said : Go teach the nations ; that is to say, every human society and whatever it com- prises ; the little and the great, the poor and the rich, the ignorant and the learned, the plebeian and the patrician, subjects and kings. Besides, the Church, the constituted Leaching authority, havinr m view the salvation of all, kings and princes, chief (^ rhe civil power are bound to attend to their salvation, and to acquire a knowledge of eternal truth ; it is evident that they ought to submit to the Church, the sole guardian of eternal truth and sal- vation. Besides, the Church could not fulfil its mission towards the State if kings, princes, the State, were inde- pendent of the Church ; the Stat^ independent, means a State which can obey or refuse to obey ; in not obeying the Church, the State closes the way of truth and of eternal life to its subjects.' In another passage, this writer almost outdoes himself. * All truth, moral or dogmatic, defined by the Pope with the intention of teaching the Church, is dogma defoi, and becomes obligatory under the pain of heresy. Now we have heard the Popes teaching the Church this dogmatic truth : the Church is the first among societies, that which has authority over all others, over the peoples, over the nations, over the sovereigns, over the governments, over the State. Therefore, the children of the Church are ob- m : 4a ROME IN CANADA. liged to believe, under pain of heresy, that the Church has a sacred authority over the State.' Verily, the New School can boast the inestimable trea- sure of a large number of apt pupils. Concede to the Church all that is here demanded for her, and her right to control parliamentary elections and to dictate the laws, to which every one of Her Ma- jesty's Canadian subjects must submit, would be unim- peachable. These pamphleteers form the advanced guard oi the Roman brigade ; and they are privileged to say in a loud voice what bishops and archbishops as yet only say in a whisper. But the attempt to control parliamentary r'-\rtions is only the putting in practice of the theory of U-- pamphleteers. When we consider that the doctrines which the above quotation exposes was emitted in reply to theologians of the old, liberal, Galilean school, we get some idea ot how far we have drifted from the ancient land-marks smce the Syllabus and the Vatican decrees were promulgated. |i III. LIBERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 1 It will be convenient, at this point, to trace, in rough outline, the ancient land-marks of the Gallican liberties, which have become obscured and nearly effaced by time. On the model of the national Church of France, the Church of Canada, under the French Dominion, was formed. The resemblance was not, and in the nature of thin^^ could not be, in all respects, complete. But the general features were in both the same. Ultramontanism was better held in check, under the French, than it has been since the conquest. Of what the Gallican liberties consisted, in the land of their birth, will first form a sub- ject of enquiry ; and then will follow the consideration of the extent to which they were transferred to Canada. These liberties were not always the same in their scope and extent ; they varied with time and circumstance, and sometimes they were theoretical rather than practical. At one time they assumed the defiant aspect ot the Prag- matic sanction ; at another, they were embodied in a concordat concluded betv/een the nation and the Pope. But whatever their form, and whatever deductions may have been made from the full demands of the Gallican advocates, there always remained a valuable residuum of real liberty, on which the national pride of France could fix with real satisfaction. The term Gallican Church ir too wide an expression for what is meant to be conveyed. There were other Gauls besides those of France, whom this Church did not include : Cologne, Treves, and Mayence, were Aus- trian Gauls, and others belonged to pays iVohcissance 44 ROME IN CANADA. whicli received without distinction all constitutions and rescrij)ts from Rome. Under this submissive name came the Pays Bas, Loraine, Provence, and Bretagne. The French Church, by the command or leave of the king, had the liberty of meeting in national council to make regulations for its government, and the ccnuluct of the ecclesiastics. In this respect the French sovereigns followed in the f(K)tsteps of the emperors, by whom gene- ral councils had been called. For more than five centuries during which national councils were held in France, Spain, and Germany, no general council was held. At length the Popes forbade the assembling of national councils, unless their leave was first obtained ; and in France none were held for several centuries. It would seem that France disdai .d to ask leave to exercise her ancient liberties, and shr nk from the responsibility of acting without leave. But the law- fulness of national councils, called by the king, was al- ways maintained. France accepted the doctrines of Rome, as laid down by the Council of Trent and other general councils. But there she stopped; she never accepted the discipline of the Council of Trent, either for herself or for that New France which she founded on the banks of the St. Law- rence. But this fact does not prevent Ultramontane writers from constantly appealing to the decrees of the Council of Trent, as if they were, without exception, in force in Canada. Rome, it is true, objected to councils which were not called by the Pope ; but France perse- vered, and refused to admit that the lapse of time be- tween one national council and another could establish a prescription in favour of the Pope. Again and again the armies of France flew across the Alps to the succour of the Pope ; but she refused to accept his bulls and re- , .,., ■(i i LIIiERTlLS OF THE GALICAN CHURCH. 45 scripts as a matter of course, or to surrender the right of regulating the disciphne of the national Church. Urban II. presided at the National Council of France held at Clareniont in 1097, which refii .«;d to intericre with lay tithes, though the existence of such tithes was not tolerated in Italy. On the ai)pointment ot bishops, the king had the right of rri^ale and investiture, and each new bishop was rec^uired '.o take an oatii of fidelity. It was formerly held, even by some Canadian priests, that these rights descended t>) the English monarch on the conquest of Canada ; and they were exercised for some time with more or less rigour. The representative of the sovereign in C.nada used to select tlie Roman Catholic bishops, not absolutely, but in a way that con- fined the choice to one of three persons whom he named. But this check upon the choice of Rome has been re- moved ; and a foreign priest, on becoming a bishop in Canada, is not now required to give the pleilge of fidelity which the oath of former times contained, and with which France has not yet thought it prudent to dispense. The bishops, having command cjf the consciences of the subjects of the sovereign, are properly required to swear that the}' will bear faithful allegiance to him, and not ex- ercise their authority to his prejudice. Tliere is the more need of this in Canada, where foreigners are sometimes sent to exercise episcopal functions, including the power of appointing and removing the inferior clergy at their pleasure. A wire pulled at Rome sets the whole machinery in motion ; and the command is obeyed by a clerical army, which is the depository of the secrets of the Catholic population, and has in its hands, besides the power of the confessional, the more terrible powers of censure and anathema.* ♦ Le predications, les confessions et avertisscments, que les ecclisiastiq'ies font au fait ties consciences peuvent beaucoup aider nuire li Tobcyssance que les sujets dovient illeur roi. Coquill . :,; I IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) U. 1.0 I.I ■^ iiii |Z2 £ ua 12.0 Ml IL25 i 1.4 91.6 V] vl v; 7 Hrotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^ 46 ROME IN CANADA. The French bishops had original jurisdiction in all ec- clesiastical causes, in their own diocese, without the in- terference of the Pope, to whom such causes could only come by what the French called devolution, arising out ot the neglect of those whose business it was to have tried them. But ecclesiastical causes did not include ques- tions relating to the possession of benefices and ecclesias- tical tithes : these came before the king's jujdges, and the ecclesiastical judge was not allowed to hear them. From the ecclesiastical courts appeals were made to the courts of Pprliament ; a proceeding which was known as the A ppel comme d'Ahus, the assumption being that the ecclesiastical judge had exceeded his powers. Benedict XII. was the first Pope who seized the elec- tive benefices ; and succeeding Popes made similar usur- pations : French archbishops, bishops, abbes, and priors were appointed at Rome, and selections made by the accustomed means were declared null. The abolition of the elective benefices deprived the ancient collators of their rights. With instinctive greed of gain, the Popes generally pounced on the richest benefices. The Prag- matic sanction put an end to the abuse. But the opposi- tion of Rome, which had won over the Bishop of Bale by the bribe of a cardinal's hat, forced Francis I. to enter into a concordat, by which the king obtained, by way of bargain, the nomination of the bishops. Under Pope Alexander III., the Council of Latran laid down the rule that if the person who had the rig of presentation to a benefice left it vacant for six months, the right of appointment would devolve on the next superior; and a succession of such acts of negligence would finally give the appointment to the Pope. Bene- fices were declared vacant on charges, not always true, of irregularity, simony, or heresy ; and the king, to put a stop 10 the abuse, called the estates together at Orleans, LIBERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 47 and decreed that alleged devolutions were not to De re- garded as creating vacancies till the cause of the vacancy had been adjudicated upon. The Pragmatic sanction, embodying a decree of the Council of Bale, had abolished references to Rome in cases of original jurisdiction ; and when causes were ap- pealed to Rome, the Pope was to send delegates to the country where they had been tried. The Courts ot Par- liament enforced this decree. The Pope once sent dele- gates to France to judge consistorially a marriage cause, in which a Grand Seigneur was concerned, no opposition being made. There is no regular Bishop's Court {Offici- alite) or other regularly organized ecclesiastical court in Canada. The Quebec Act gives the sovereign power to establish ecclesiastical courts, but it Avas never exer- cised, and wliat were called causes majeures are all re- served for adjudication by the Pope. And it has become the fashion to refer mere disputes, which could not be placed in any catalogue of reserved causes, between eccle- siastics, where the Ultramontane feels assured of suc- cess in advance. Some of the Popes, notably Alexander III. and Inno- cent III., not infrequently judged causes without touching their merits, and sacrificed justice to formalities of proce- dure. In this way the canon law, which was intended only to apply to^ecclesiastics, became a second civil law ; and the judicial practice of the canon law became better known than that of the Roman civil law. Ecclesiastics contended that there was little use in studying the civil law, since there were scarcely any causes that could not be decided under the canon law; and the Popes, to give an ascendancy to the canon law, even in the lay courts, pro- nounced the sentence of excommunication against all by whom it was contravened. By these and other means, they succeeded in enforcing the observance of the canon 11 i " * r # n 1 ! •,1; i( u ' I \i I :' ^i ! ■ ^! 48 ROME IN CANADA. law. But, in France, the liberties of the Gallican Church kept this abuse in check. The delays in the court of Rote, at Rome, were ruinous : Balde says that if a cause were decided within thirty years, good progress was made. Though the Popes, after they had laid claim to almost absolute power, reserved many cases to themselves, and interdicted the Diocesans from granting dispensations, the French Church, retaining its ancient liberties, was not willing to recognize all these reservations ; and if she sometimes allowed them, she did not hold herself obliged to do so for all time. The necessity for each nation to make rules of ecclesias- tical discipline for itself was derived by Gallican writers from the circumstance that what would be beneficial to one might be prejudicial to another. The changes in the order and discipline of the Church had been numerous. The mode of appointing Popes and bishops had not always been the same ; the priests had not always been required to be celibates; the dispensation and distribu- tion of temporalities had varied ; the establishment and regulation of monasteries had been subject to no uniform rules ; the age at which persons had been admitted to holy orders had been different at different times ; a se- cular had been changed into a sacred order ; the mode of conducting the service of the Church hi:d not been immu- table ; the constitution of the chapter had not been uniform ; the mode in which fetes had been commenced and the days on which meat might not be eaten had differed, at dif- ferent times : neither the amount of tithes nor the mode of collecting them had been invariable ; presentations and collations to benefices had not always been made in the same way.* The French Church acknowledged the Pope to be the true successor of St. Peter ; but it recognized in him no ♦ Coquille. LIBERTIES OF THE CALLICAN CHURCH. 49 right to resort to the use of absolute power. The only exception to this rule was found in the pays'd obeissance. The Popes claimed the right to exempt monks from the control of the Diocesans and to make them directly subject to Rome ; but the National Council of Paris decreed that no one could be regarded as clerk or priest who was not subject to the correction of some bishop. The monks, it was held, could not declare themselves subject to the Pope without contravening the ancient discipline of the Church ; and the Pope could not, at the distance he re- sided from France, watch over the monasteries and col- leges of that country. One of the motives for the multi- plication of dioceses, was that the bishops might better understand cases requiring adjudication than a judge re- siding at Rome. Reservations oi crime and cases of con- science, Gallican writers aver, were unknown in ancient times, and were first made about the time of Gregory Vll. By the middle of the nineteenth century no cause was consistorily judged in France without havmg first undergone the preliminary stages ; though the Popes did sometimes, not without protest, continue to interfere in cases other than of appeal and devolution. Special means were taken to protect the rights of the lay patron, which were originally due to his or his prede- cessors having founded a church and endowed it : as a consequence of such foundation, he and his successors re- tained the right of presentation. No provisions of the Pope prejudicial to the patron's rights were admitted. When a legate went to France, it was customary for the Parliament so to restrict his powers, that he could not ex- ercise his functions prejudicially to the lay patrons. The French Church could, without having recourse to Rome, create new bishoprics — though in more recent times the Pope exercised the power — uniie two old ones ; secularize a monastic church ; dispense with such prohi- mi ; ;? m '<-: i! 7; :'■. h,^' r^h mi h Ills ! ■■ ill m f^i ! ■■; :< >l iii 50 ROME IN CANADA. bited degrees in marriage as were the creation of human law, in other words, the canon law ; — when the impedi- ment arose from the civil law no ecclesiastic had the right to assume to remove it ; — unite old and erect new parish churches and other benefices ; transfer a bishop from one See to another ; fix the age at which the monastic orders might be entered and holy orders conferred ; dispense with the rule which prohibited bastards from holdi'.ig benefices, though the Pope had reserved this power from about the eleventh century ; abolish the indults of cardi- nals ; provide for the government of hospitals ; regulate and confirm the election of bishops, and give coadjutors to such of them as, from age or infirmity, required assis- tance ; provide for the administration of a vacant cathe- dral churcli ; define the rank and power of Roman car- dinals in France, and fix the age of marriage. The necessity of archbishops going to Rome to receive the pallium was contested ; the metropolitan, as patriarch, it was contended, could confer it ; but the general prac- tice seems to have been in contradiction of this conten- tion.* Numerous were the decretals and bulls which were not observed in France, and which were not allowed to be published there. The Ultramontanes contended that French Catholics were not the less bound by these de- cretals and brlls, as their publication at Rome, the capital of the Catholic world, made them obligatory on the faithful everywhere. When it was customary to pub- lish at Rome, every year, the bull in coend Domini, the Roman Court assumed that this publication was binding on the faithful in France, as well as in other countries. By this bull, the Pope claimed exclusive power of ab- solution in certain cases ; but Galilean writers held that no * Coquille. Traite des Liberies de I'EgHse de France et de droits et autorite que la "ourronne de France a ^s affaires de I'Eglise dudit R union avec ladite Eglise. ume pour bonne et sainte ill LIBERTIES OF THE GALLIC AN CHURCH. 51 one could be interdicted the communion unless}he had vol- untarily confessed his crime, or been condemned by name, in some. Court, ecclesiastical or lay. Anathematization, or damnation to eternal death, was, in the French scheme of discipline, reserved exclusively for those who remained incorrigible, after repeated opportunities to give satisfac- tion had been rejected. In early times there were no reserved cases ; a simple priest could absolve for crimes of every degree. f The French Government disregarded the publication of this bull at Rome, and refused to allow it to be pub- lished in France : it denied to the Pope the possession of that absolute power which the pretence of binding people under other governments assumed. The Galileans held that, if a rescript from Rome had reference to faith solely, the bishops could judge of the matter as well as the Pope, and that they could revise his judgments ; if the rescript had reference to discipline only, each Church had the right to regulate its own, ana the authority of the Pope was powerless to change it. When a question of dogma arose, and the Church met in council to decide it, the delegates were bound to express, not their own individual opinion, but the opinion of the Church'^they represented. Rules for the discipline of the Church, it was held, are made for the benefit of the people, and neither Popes nor Councils could be in possession of the knowledge neces- sary to form an opinion as to what rules would be best for any particular country, and no general rule could possibly be suitable to the people of every country. These maxims had been held by the French Church il i. t Coquille has preserved the formula used : Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, qui est le Souverain Pontife, te absolve, et moi de I'autorite qu'il mil octroioe je t'absous. If, after absolution had been pronounced, in the supposed article of death, a recovery took place, Boniface VIII. held that the person so absolved again fell under censure, as if by way of penalty for disappointing the expectation o his death. But, at an earlier date, there were great doctors who opposed this doctrine, 4 '!>■* 5* ROME IN CANADA. from time immemorial. The proces-verbal of an assembly of French clergy contains these principles: ist — That the bishops have the right, by divme institution, to judge in matters of doctrine ; 2nd — That the constitutions of the Popes are binding on the whole Church when they have been accepted by the pastors as a body ; 3rd — That this acceptation, when made by the bishops, should be in the exercise of their own judgment. While the National Church claimed this power of ac- cepting or rejecting, the French king constantly exercised the same power, not as co-ordinate but absolute. No con- stitution of the Pope could be received in France till the king had, by letters patent, ordered it to be put into exe- cution ; and such order was not given till it was ascertained that it contained nothing contrary to the rights of the crown and the liberties of the National Church. For the king was the head of the French Church, as the Pope claimed to be of the Church universal ; and as they both claimed to rule by divine right, the national as well as the universal Church was a theocracy. When the Papal nuncio presented a bull to the king, the king caused a meeting of the bishops to be called, to deliberate upon its acceptance. If the bull was accepted by the bishops, and their judgment was confirmed by the court, the king caused letters patent to be addressed to all the parlia- ments in the kingdom, ordering them to register the bull, but not till after they had examined whether it contained anything contrary to the rights ol the crown or the liber- ties of the Church. Legates of the Popes were only received after their powers had been examined. Nor did France accept without questioner modification thedecreesofGeneralCouncils. TheCouncilsof Constance and Bale were not received in France without modifica- tions, and the disciplinary decrees of the Council of Trent were not received at all. The Council of Bourges, at 1 1 LIBERTIES OF THE OALLICAN CHURCH. 5J which the Pragmatic Sanction was framed, regarded the Council of Bale as oecumenical, but it received its decrees only with such modifications as made them conformable to the manners and usages of the French. The Council of Trent was received in Holland, when the country was under the dominion of Spain, but not without modifica- tions, which had for their object the protection of the rights of the sovereign and his subjects. In matters of faith, the definitions of Councils were binding on all Catholics: their decisions had force in the for intdrieur,* but no law of the Church could go into effect without the consent of the sovereign. In matters of discipline the people of any country could abolish an ecclesiastical rule by non-observance and the introduction of another of a different character. Even in spiritual matters, no innovation was possible without the consent of the sovereign, as the head of the National Church. All the sovereigns of Europe have, at one time or another, exercised the right of examining ecclesiastical rules, with a view to their adoption or rejection; and this practice is one from which France never departed. An arnt of the Parliament of Languedoc, in the fifteenth century, ordered Bernard, Archbishop of Toulouse, to revoke or cause to be revoked the monitoire obtained from Rome on the sub- ject of the property of the defunct archbishop, because it was necessary to obtain the permission of Parliament to give it effect. Indeed, the prohibitions of the kings of France and their officers to receive bulls or briefs fnnn Rome without express permission of the sovereign, verified by the Parliaments, are counted by thousands. And other countries besides France acted with the same precaution. The Emperor Rodolph II. prohibilod tlu; 5 I ' ■■' ' ,' in nvt > ■ ill * II y a deux sortes Ac for intiirieur, le for de la conscience, et le tor dt la penitence ou de la confession sacramental. — Trevoux. The word for, from forum, signifies a, public place in which justice is administered. > 't i ■■i\ '■ :\ .,!'^ ! ; 1 1 ! • ii m ii' III ll! 1 ,Un |: I ' IIP i' II I I ;ii!i!.i 94 ROME IN CANADA reception, publication, or execution of any bulls without his sanction. In Spain, Poland, and Naples, letters re- ceived from Rome were at once taken to the Council of the sovereign for examination. Philip II. of Spain made it a rule that the publication of a bull at Rome should count for nothing unless it was accompanied with the exequatur Regintn ; and though this rule was not always rigorously enforced, Spain did frequently place itself in opposition to the pretensions of the Court of Rome. Naples acted on the same principle. In Austrian Flan- ders, all rescripts from Rome had to be presented to the •Council and examined before they were allowed to go into execution. Even in some of the States of Italy, in- cluding Venice, the same precaution was taken. The King of Sardinia, in the Victorian Code, forbade, under severe penalties, the execution of any bulls, briefs, letters, or mandates, without the express permission of the Senate, whether they came from Rome, or any other foreign ecclesiastical court, or any court out of the juris- diction of the Senate of Savoy. The same usage prevailed in Sicily. The rule may be said to have been general in all the Catholic States of Europe ; but this right of sovereignty was one which it was not always possible to maintain, in active force, against the hostile powers with which the Court of Rome was armed. Hence arose the custom of the Church having recourse to the temporal prince for protection, which the prince refused or granted at will, or as might seem prudent. The emperors came in time to regulate by law the manner in which the royal arm should assist the Church, by ordering the judges to give effect to the sentences of bishops, with- out which their judgments would have been inoperative. At length it came to pass that all Catholic States lent or refused to the Church the secular arm according to • circumstances. LIBERTIES OF THE OALLICAN CHURCH, 55 Various means were taken in different States for the rejection ot the bulls ol the Popes. In France, there was the Appcl comme d'abus, before the king's judges or to a General Council. Spain simply retained the bulls to pre- vent their being executed ; other countries refused to allow them to take effect till they had been scrutinized by the Secretary of State, or authorized by the sovereign, or the judiciary ; among them Germany, Flanders, Portugal^ Naples, Milan, and Florence. The Court of Rome pretended that the ordinances of the civil governments for the execution of the bulls of the Popes were useless formalities, injurious to the Holy See, since they made kings judges in matters of faith, and su- perior to the Pope in questions of doctrine ; that the usage was new and unknown to antiquity. But the scru- tmy to which the bulls were subjected by the civil power was regarded as necessary, not for the purpose of passing judgment on the dogma, but for the purpose of ascertain- ing whether, under the pretext of dogma, they contained anything that menaced the public peace, which every sov- ereign is bound to preserve. It is for the civil power to ascertain whether a dogmatic bull contains anything which derogates from the rights of the State, anything which is contrary to local liberties and settled customs. The sov- ereigns, it was contended, did not decide on matters of faith ; they introduced no novelties when they refused to authorize the execution of new decisions of the Court ot Rome ; they simply maintained the ancient laws of the Church, of which they were the protectors ; they refused the aid of the royal arm to carry out decrees, the execution of which would, in their opini n, have been an abuse of power. From the time of Clovis, the French took precautions to permit the publication of such rules only as were not contrary to the rights of the king, ol the Church, and the fill' > [■ '} ' H n It I fr i <* 'Mil Illii 1! S6 ROME IN CANADA. people. Ecclesiastical rules on the subject of discipline were made to conform to the local laws ; whence result- ed a right which each nation called its liberties. These regulations were made m pursuance ot the principle that each nation has an inherent right to govern itself, and that no foreign power has a right to interfere in its inter- nal affairs. Pope Alexander III. admitted that, on the question of the validity or the invalidity of a marriage, ti?e rules of the Church of Rome ought to give place to the customs of the Church of France. From the countries in which these customs existed must be distingued the pays d'obeissance, whose feebleness subjecting them to the Court of Rome caused them to re- ceive without distinction all bulls and rescripts. The pretensions of the Court of Rome once admitted, and acquiesced in for a long period of time, were often regard- ed as conferring the right of prescription ; though it was a maxim of the Gallican Church that no length of time could constitute a prescription m opposition to the public good. The relations between the Gallican Church and the Court of Rome were long regulated by the Concordat con- cluded on the i6th August, 1516, between Fran9ois I. and Leon X. Previous to this the Pragmatic Sanction had, for more than three quarters of a centurj , caused great opposition between the Courts of France and Rome. The Concordat took from the chapters of the French Churches the election of bishops ; instead of which the king was to name to the Pope a doctor of theology or of law, not less than twenty-seven years of age, six months after the vacation of the See, in order that the Pope might confer the benefice ; if this election had fallen on an in- capable person, the king was to be notified to name another, and if he failed to do so within three months, the Pope might make the appointment himself. Where the LIBERTIES OF THE QALLICAN CHURCH. 57 selection was made in curia, the Pope was authorized to appoint the bishop without waiting for the nomination of the king, and the same rule was applied to abbts and conventual elective priories. The second article abol- ished the i^races expectatives, by means of which the Popes had virtually disposed oi Church patronage in France through recommendations to the bishops and chap- ters, even before the benefices were vacant. The poor beneficiary was sometimes killed in order to vacate his place.* At the time when the Popes seized the collation to ben- efices, by what was called prevention, the exercise ot this power, which was always odious in France, was subjected to many modifications and restrictions, and the rights of lay patrons were in all cases guarded against the encroach- ment. There were canonists who defended the usurpa- tion, by saying that the Pope was the source of all power, and could at will resume a jurisdiction which he had re- mitted to the ordinaries ; but the doctrine was never fully accepted in France. The term prevention signified priority in the act of appointment, and sometimes the Pope and the Ordinary ran a race against time and against one another. If the provisions of the Pope and of the Ordinary bore the same date, it was customary, in France, to give the preference to those of the Ordinary ; the can- onists, on the contrary, gave it to those of the Pope.f The Concordat dealt a heavy blow at the liberties of the Galilean Church. By it causes majeurs were reserved for adjudication at Rome; the Pragmatic Sanction was in its main features abolished, and the Councils of Constance and Balecondemned. The nomination of bishops reserved to the king lost much of its apparent value, from the fact that the Pope had the power of rejecting the selection * Diet, Univ. Art. Libert^gdes Eglise Catholigques. t Du Cange. si! 1 1 i| > SI i i 11 \ ' 1 1 1 ' I'! ■I t 1 |f| i " 'I : !'■ > '-■I m 58 ROME IN CANADA. :\~ . made on the pretence of its unsuitableness ; and where the right of election had previously existed, the king did not even obtain the privilege of qualified nomination. The Concordat did not embrace Provence and Bretagne, pays d'obeissance. Some of the most objectionable articles were modified, restricted, or abrogated by usage. Leon X. and his suc- cessors suppressed the privileges of election which certain Churches possessed. Leon accorded to Francois 1. an indult for the nomination of bishops in Bretagne and Pro- vence, which was believed to be in execution of a verbal agreement made and secret articles framed when the Con- cordat was signed. It was in virtue of similar bulls that the king nominated to bishoprics in conquered countries. From the time of Fran(;ois 1. the French kings nominat- ed the bishops and archbishops in every part of the country, and the Popes conferred the benefices on the persons so selected. The unpopularity of the Concordat aroused opposi- tion on all sides. The Parliament of Paris only consent- ed to register it when the menace of dissolution had for two years been hanging over it ; declaring that it did so because expressly commanded by the king, and not be- cause its own judgment approved. The cognizance of questions relating to the title of benefices, which the Parliament had up to that time possessed, was taken from it and transferred to the Grand Council. The Univer- sity of Paris joined in the opposition, by remonstrance, protest, and appeals to a future Council. On several oc- casions the clergy demanded the restoration of elections, nctably at the Council of Rouen. Such of the articles of the Pragmatic Sanction as were not specially abolished by the Concordat remained in force. Fran9ois I. desired to obtain the nomination of bishops, for the purpose of being able to recompense the devotion LIBERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 59' or services of members of the noblesse ; and it is a curious fact that while twenty-four Popes, from Gregory VII., had employed both temporal and spiritual arms against the emperors, and taken from them the appoint- ment of bishops and abbots, for the purpose of giving the election to the chapters in Germany, seven Popes used their utmost endeavours to take from the chapters of France the right of election which certain Churches had possessed for centuries, iorthepurposeof transferring the right of nomination to the king. It is an error very widely disseminated which assumes that the annates, or the first year's income, which became payable to the Pope in respect of all sorts of benefices, had their foundation in the Concordat. They seem to rest on no other authority than a bull of Pope Leon X., which, in several editions, has been added to the text of the Concordat, as have several other pieces which form^ no part of it. The bull is of a date posterior to the Con- cordat ; it was not registered by the Parliament of Paris ; it was not received in France in the only way which could give it legal effect ; it was not approved of by the fifth Council of Latran, along with the text of the Con- cordat ; ^'t was, in fact, not then in existence. That annates were collected under a bull which never obtained legal acceptance in France, is a proof of how inadequate the precautions taken by the French Govern- ment to guard the rights of the crown against the usur- pation of Rome sometimes proved to be. This bull required every one who applied to the Court of Rome to h ».ve a benefice conferred upon him to accompany application with a statement of its annual value. It was Avorth while to collect the figures with care, for the amount sent annually from France to Rome in the shape of annates, was nearly six hundred thousand livres. The Popes refused to give a year's credit for the annates to h -'i^ •Co ROME IN CANADA. the newly appointed bishops : letters of institution and provision were not issued till the money was paid. Some Popes went so lar as to visit with the penalty of excom- munication non-payment if continued beyond a given time. The Gallican Church, as a national establishment, contained one very grave defect when it found itself con- strained, contrary to law, to send these immense sums to Rome for a purpose which a National Church ought to have been able to fulfil. This recourse to Rome would have been unnecessary if the resolutions of the French Church passed at an Assembly called by Charles VI. at Paris had been adhered to. According to this plan, the archbishops were to confirm the election of the bishops within their dioceses, and the election of the Metropolitan by the oldest of the suffragans, or by the Provmcial Coun- cil ; and for the collation and institution to other benefices recourse was to be had to the bishop of the place. Henry II. had forbidden his subjects to send money to Rome, whether for dispensations, provisions of benefices, or for any other purpose whatever. The French kings, in this particular, gave a license to the Popes of Avignon which they would not, in the first instance, have given to those of Rome. The annates formed one of the chief means of raising the Popes from poverty to riches. Those who objected to their payment stigmatized them as simoniacal. The French, at the Council of Constance, expressed a desire for their abolition, and the Council of Bale, declaring them simoniacal, did formally abolish them ; the Assembly at Bourges modified this decree, by permitting the then existing Pope to draw one-fifth of the annates ; but it was by favour that they accorded so much to this Pope personally, with the distinct under- standing that it was not to go to his successors. The liberties of the Gallican Church, so called from the LIBERTIES OF THE GALLIC AN CHURCH. 6i successful opposition to the efforts which the Court oi Rome had repeatedly made to reduce the French people to servitude, were guarded by a triple rampart : the inter- position of the authority of the sovereign to prevent obe- dience where obedience was not due; the accepted prin- ciple that the Pope is bound by the canons, and is inca- pable of derogating from such of them as have been ac- cepted in France ; the principle that a General Council possesses authority superior to the Pope. These liber- ties were regarded as the precious remains of the first centuries, which France believed she had preserved more strictly than any other State. If Bossuet could rise from the dead and make his appearance in Canada, with all the sins of Gallicanism on his head, the New School would brand him with anathema, and would not even permit his title to rank among the faithful. The Gallicans recognized the Pope as the chief ol bishops, and allowed that he possessed the authority which the ancient Councils had attributed to him ; but they did not grant him the possession of that power which infallibility implies. For the limits which they placed to his authority, they pleaded the warrant of an- tiquity. The French made it a subject of pride that they had preserved, with greater integrity than any other nation, the liberties ot the National Chmrch without breaking the unity of the Catholic faith. The perse- verance of the Church of Rome in sustaining its preten- sions was nevertheless rewarded by the growth of some usages unknown in earlier times ; but on every important occasion the Parliaments brought against the innova- tions a strenuous opposition. The French kings, for special reasons, sometimes accorded to the Popes privi- leges which could not have been claimed of right ; and succeeding Popes, regarding these privileges as the ap- I?' 1 ; itl ^f m ■n ill. II fill i < I 'si" 1 ■' *!' .1 -A .11 il- .;:) ■ ■ 1 ■ ] t - ■■1 ;■ if ' m 62 ROME IN CANADA. S;i panage of the See of Rome, converted them into a common right and gave them the name of privileges. The body of ancient canons which the French took for their guide was the Code approved by the Council of Chalcedonia, known under the title of Ancien Code des Canons, in which they prolessed to find the ancient com- mon-law of the Church ; while they regarded the new canon law as bmding only on the countries into which it had been introduced. To the pretension of Boniface VIII. that all the faithful are bound to believe, as neces- sary to salvation, that temporal governments are subject to the Pope, and that it is in his power to make and un- make Kings, they contented themselves by replying that it was new, and that the ancient canons gave the Pope no such right. To the assumption of the Popes, that their constitutions had the force of law throughout the Church universal, the Gallicans, in reply, asked to be shown the titles by which Rome assumed to take away the liberties of a nation ot freemen. ;}: What may be called the great charter of Gallicanism is to be found in the declaration of the French clergy ot the 1682 ; but it is sheer misrepresentation to say that this declaration is the origin of Gallicanism. The declar- ation was drawn up by Bossuet, and is comprised in four articles. Before examining these articles, it will be necessary to a full understanding of the subject to glance at the causes which led to the assembly of the clergy, and the framing of the celebrated declaration. The droit de regale, which had existed from an early period in France, consisted of the enjoyment by the king of the revenue of certain bishoprics, and the nomination to the benefices from the time they became vacant to the appointment of new bishops. The Parliament of Paris, in 1608, declared all churches subject to the droit de X Diet. Univer. Liberies des Eglises Catholiques, h\ i;;i LIBERTIES OF THE GALLlLAN CHURCH. 63 regale which had not a special title of exemption ; and this judgment was sanctioned, in 1673, by Louis XIV. In this enterprise, the king encountered the opposition of two bishops, notably the Bishop of Pamiers. This prelate refused to recognize the canonry whom the king had nominated, en regale. The Metropolitan put them in possession, and the Parliament assured them the enjoy- ment of the revenue. Innocent XI. came to the assistance of the bishop, and in several briefs attacked the declara- tion of the king as contrary to all laws, human and divine. The bishop then excommunicated the regalists and the officers who had seized the revenue. In the midst of this agitation, the bishop, M. Caulet, died, and the Parliament of Toulouse ordered the entire chapter to meet within three days, to appoint Vicars- General. One of the Vicars-General, who had been named by the ancient canons, Aubarede, ordered the regalists out of the Church, and on their refusal to comply, declared them excommunicated and delivered over to Satan. This priest was sent into exile ; but his colleague revoked the sentence of the Metropolitan, excommunicated the pro- moter and the Grand-VicarofM.deToulouse,by whom the vicars had been appointed, in pursuance of the arret of Parliament. The king selected M. de Barlemont for the bishopric of Pamiers ; but the Pope, instead of granting him the necessary bulls, issued an acrimonious brief, in which he declared valueless all the confessions received and all the marriages contracted by permission of the Grand-Vicars named by the Metropolitan. The Parlia- ment of Paris pronounced the suppression of this brief. The Pope, in turn, ordered the General of the Jesuits to address copies of this brief to the Provincials of the Society for circulation among the members of their order. The Advocate-General pronounced this manner of pub- lishing briefs to be new, dangerous, and contrary to the J'lP iiin ^iv 'Ml ' 'i ■■ i\ I 1 1 1 I! i "' i ill 64 ROME IN CANADA. laws of the State. The Pariiament issued an arret forbidding not only the Jesuits, but all other religious orders, to publish or circulate any briefs or bulls which had not been admitted to registration. On the death of the abbess of the monastery of Charonne, an ill-governed institution, situated in the Faubourg St. Antoine, the Archbishop of Paris made a temporary appointment to the office. A year later, an unknown hand carried to the abbe a brief from the Pope, which moved the religieuses to elect a superior and assistants without making an appeal to the Archbishop of Paris, their immediate superior. Then came another brief praising this act of obedience. The Parliament declared these briefs an abuse of power, and ordered the seizure of the goods of the monastery, on the complaint of creditors that they were being clandestinely sold. The contest waxed hotter and hotter ; a new brief proscribed t-. 3 arret of Parliament. The Ultramontanes ranked the affair of Charonne among the causes majeurs ; they claimed for the Pope the right to interpret the Concordat according to his will and pleasure, and they treated as heretics all who affirmed that the bishops held their authority immediately from Jesus Christ. The Assembly of the clergy of 1665 engaged Doctor Gerbais tc compose a treaty des causes majeurs which, according to the Roman doctrine, could only be decided by the Pope. Doctor Gerbais, on the contrary, under- took to prove that the bishops had the right to deciae in matters of faith and discipline, and to oppose the authority which they received immediately from Jesus Christ to the novelties which might be obtruded into their dioceses and their provinces ; that the bishops ought to be judged, in the first instance, by their confreres in the pro- vince. Gerbais' book was condemned by the Pope, as containing schismatical doctrine, bemg open to the 'mkIi LIBERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 65 suspicion of heresy, and injurious to the Holy See ; and every one was forbidden to read it on pain of excom- munication. The causes of difference between France and the Court of Rome were constantly increasing. Father Buhy, a distinguished priest of the order of Carmelites, in a thesis read at the Sorbonne, had maintained the doctrine that there are laws to which the Pope is amenable ; that he cannot, in all cases, dispense with the canons ; that he can neither depose kings nor impose tribute on the clergy of their kingdoms ; that the bishops hold their jurisdiction from Jesus Christ; that the Faculty of Theology ot Paris neither regards the Pope as infallible, nor as above the Councils of the Church ; that the droit de r^^a/^ is neither a myth nor an usurpation. The Pope interdicted the book ; and on the very next day the Parliament of Paris forbade the execution of the order of interdiction. Buhy, regarding the interdict as suspended, went to preach at Lyons, and when the news reached Rome, he was declared incapable of performing any ecclesiastical function or having any voice in his order. The Procureur-General represented to Parliament that Buhy had been condemned contrary to law ; that the form of the condemnation was not less irregular than unjust, and that, as a French subject, he could only be judged in the first instance by a French Court ; that the case was one in which the Faculty of Theology of Paris had original jurisdiction. Buhy was ordered to continue his functions of lecturer in his convent, and the Carmelites and other religious orders whose superiors lived out of the kingdom of France were forbidden to execute any decree or letters patent of their orders which did not relate to the ordinary discipline of their houses, without having first obtained letters patent of the king, dul)- registered. -1^ IIH 1 11 n ' 1 1 fl ■ T 1 1' *i 1 1' 1 ■■' 1 ; M u Jl.LuA m m w 1 ^n VMS M :| , I 1 ; ll. V . mi- r ■ , m r ' ;■■ '66 ROME IN CANADA. The Assembly of the French clergy of i68o,whcn about to separate, learned that three briefs of the Pope on the subject of the ref^alc, in which the king was menaced, and the bishops rej^roached, were being circulated in the kingdom. They therefore assembled next year to the number of forty, when they expressed the opinion that * to remain silent under the briefs of Innocent XI. would be to ccjnscnt to the annihilation of the jurisdiction of the ordinaries, and to renounce the inviolable maxims of the discipline of the Gailican Church.' They remonstrated with the Pope, and drew up a solemn, but respectful protestation, and they unanimously r«;solved to ask the consent of the king to hold the General Assembly, which took place in 1682, which afterwards became famfnis. At tliat Assembly, M. Coquelin raised the question of the extent and the limits of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and there was a strong feeling in favour (jf bring- ing it under discussion ; but Bossuet, who was engaged in controversy with the Calvinists, felt that this chord should not be too rudely touched, and his opinion changed the direction of the discussion. M. Coquelin recalled the fact that, eighteen years before, the Faculty of The- ology of Paris had protested against the six propositions which attempts were then being made to propagate : ist. — ' That the Pope has authority, direct or indirect, over the authority of kings ; that in certain cases the Pope can depose kings ; that he can release subjects from their oath of fidelity; that the Pope is not under subjec- tion to the rules of the Church, and can depose bishops, contrary to the dispositions of the canons ; that the Pope recognizes no superior power, not even that of Gen- eral Councils; that his decisions are infallible, independent of the Church, and according to some, this infallibility extends to questions of fact.' The school of theologians who preached these doc- LrnERTIES OF Tin- GALUCAN CHURCH. 67 trincs, the New School of that day, first stated as private opinions maxims which they afterwards aim(;d to erect into do;,'mas. A committee appt^inted to cxainine the six articles combatted by the Sorlx^nne, evolved Iroiii them the famous declaration in four articles which, as already observed, i)ecame the great charter of Gallicanism.* ♦ I subjoin a trnrr.latinn of their articlci : iil That St. Peter an! his successors, vicars of jcsus Chrint and the Church, as a whole, have rtci-ive! from Ci'.d power only over spiritual things, which concern salvation, and not over things temporal and ci''il ; JcsuH Christ himself Raid that his l , ( i 1 ;i '^;' I : i; )-■'' m 6b ROME IN CANADA. The king, as head of the French Church, chiinicd a right not less absohite than that to which any Pope ever pretended, in respect to the teaching of the four articles. He ordered them to be registered by all the Parliaments and tribunals, by the Universities and Faculties of The- ology and of canon law. Every one was forbidden to teacli anything contrary to the doctrine contained in the declaration ; the bishops were ordered to cause it to be taught throughout their dioceses ; every one appointed to a professorship of theology was required to subscribe to the declaration and to promise to teach the articles ; and no one could receive the degree of doctor till he had, in a thesis, sustained the great charter of Gallicanism. The declaration was, in some sort, the work of the Sorbonne, since it contained the articles presented to the king in 1663, and the greater part of the bishops had been trained in Gallican principles in that tamous school. The stubborn temper of Innocent XI. had been irritated by the rejection of his briefs, and he was strengthened in his resolution to oppose the execution of the four articles by the intrigues of Austria and Spain, whose representatives assured him that if he yielded to Louis XIV. the right of r<'^a/«, these countries could claim the same privilege. The French bishops excused them- selves to the Pope tor having consented to the extension of the ri'gale ; and the latter, in an acrimonious reply, loaded them with every species of reproach, and said he had read with a shudder of horror that part of their letter in which they spoke of their deference to the king. He assumed to annul everything that had been done in the French assemblies regarding i\\e regale. The bishops, in theirturn, protested againstthebriefsof the Pope, as being contrary to the rights, usages, and liberties of the Galli- can Church. Their action being made known to the , V UDERTIES OF THE GALLICAN CHURCH. 69 nuncio, the Pope ceased to send briefs, and took refuge in the policy of silence and delay. To the members of the clergy who had formed part of the Assembly of 1682, and whom the king had since named to bishoprics, the Pope refused the custcjmary bulls. The idea of creating a Patriarchate in France, to which expression had been given under Richelieu and Mazarin, was renewed, and there was a disposition to demand the re-establishment of the Pragmatic Sanction. But Louis XIV., who had formed the project of extirpating Calvinism, discouraged these enterprises. The wrath of the Pope was too fierce to be appeased by the fit of insane devotion which took the shape of the revocation of the Edict ot Nantes. Two years after that event, the franchises of the French ambassadors at Rome were withdrawn. The Parliament pronounced against this bull by the appel comme d'abus. But the Jesuits, who had possession of the king's conscience, were not idle ; and but for their efforts it is probable that the French Church would have obtained, from that time, absolute in- dependence of Rome in matters of discipline. The impres- sion which the Jesuits had made on his mind is fairly represented by the remark he is said to have made to the Procureur-General, Harlay, that it was impossible to have too great a regard for the Pope ; to which Harlay is said to have replied : Oui, sire, il faut lui baiser les pieds et lui Her les mains (yes, sire, it is necessary to kiss his feet and tie his hands). Innocent XL, had nothing to do but to wait. The number of French bishops to whom was denied the power necessary for the discharge of their functions was con stantly increasing. Cazzoni and other courtisans, whose eartheCourts of Austria and Spain had obtained, continue edto confirm the Pope in his determination to refuse the bulls of provision and installation to the new bishops- i# ••! i. a i 1 ■' >. : li -iM • U ;-■ ■■ '.i H'jiil ' : 'l ■By ; 3 '. !i 1 '1 '■ ,i ' ^Blti' '! HI' I I 70 ROME IN CANADA. Innocent XI. died in 1689, and bequeathed the quarrel to liis successor, Alexander VIII., to secure whose elec- tion France is said to have expended three millions of livres ; but, whether this be true or not, the new Pope adopted the maxims of his predecessor. lie demanded that the new bishops who had signed the Declaration should retract. The king replied that the execiition ot one of the principal articles of the Concordat could not be made to depend on this condition ; the ancient formula of f.iilh, he said, was sufficient ; the Assembly of 1682 had not decreed a new article of faith, but made an exposition of the doctrines of the French clergy, which the demand for bulls could not be allowed to destroy; those questions were at least problematical, and there could be no reason lor doubting the orthodoxy of the new bishops, as the Councils of Constance and Bale had made the same decrees, and that of Trent had not made any contrary declaration ; numbers of French bishops who had sustained similar propositions had ob- tained their bulls; the desire of the Popes to make new articles of faith was of dangerous consequence ; finally, if the refusal of the bulls were persisted in, France would re-establish the condition of things which existed prior to the Concordat and supply herself with pastors. The Pope lowered his demand so far as to express his readiness to accept from the bishops a letter stating that they had no intention to make any definition contrary to the faith, or to do anything that would be displeasing to the Holy See ; and that the king ought to forego the execu- tion of his edict on the subject of the four articles. The king wished to come to an accommodation with the Pope, without a retraction on the part of the bishops; and while the form of letter to be written was under con- sideration, the Pope fulminated a bull concerning the four articles more heavily weighted with reproaches than ii ; Lrni:RTii:s of the gallican church. 71 that of his predecessor on the subject of the rvj^alc. Of this bull, which the Pope hesitated to publish, the car- dinals sent some copies to France. A second Pope had died since the rupture with France had taken place, and Innocent XII. appeared upon the scene. The number of French bishcjps awaitinf^ bulls now reached thirty-five. The Papal nuncio at Paris frightened Louis XIV. into the belief that lie was sustain- ing an imi)udent and impious doctrine of tiie Ricberists, and was thereby imperilling his eternal salvation. Louis now yielded ; and Bossuet wrote the letter de- manded from the bishops, whicii, thouf,'h not intended for a recantation, might easily be taken for such, with the addition of voluntary self-abasement, which could scarce- ly have been necessary. ' Prostrated,' tlie letter read, ' at the feet of your beatitude, we declare ourselves pene- trated with grief above all expression for things done in our asse.Tiblies winch have highly displeased your holi- ness and your predecessors ; and everything which has been regarded as decreed touching the Pontifical author- ity we declare ought to be held as not decreed ; and we hold as not to have been deliberated everything that was regarded as deliberated to the prejudice of the Holy See ; for our intention was not to decree nor to do anything to the prejudice of our Churches.' Bossuet, interpreting his own letter, in his Gallia Orthodoxa, denies that the bishops intended ^o abjure as erroneous the doctrines of the four articles. The king, on his part, wrote to Innocent XII. to say that he had given orders that the clauses of his decree which related to the Declaration should not take effect (n'ayant pas de suite). Nevertheless, the four articles did continue to be taught and defended in France. St. Aignan, who in a thesis had applauded the four ar- ticles, on being named bishop by Louis XIV., was refus- 1 f i > PS i i 1' 1 i ; ; - > T <'^ ■ i •- T(i> «l 72 KOMIC IN CANADA. a<\ f)is hiilirs by Cicrnfint XI., to whom the king wrote to explain that 'if lie had renoiinr.ed the rij^'ht ofohlif^inj^ liis subjects to fr^llow his edict, he did not thereby intfiud to [)revent tliem exoressinj^ t}ieir s*;iitirnerits on a matter which was nc^t one of faith,' And the P(;pe granterl the bulls. 7'fie [)ecIriration beinj^ a'^'i.cked by writers in t}je ser- vice of Korne as ' pesf iff:rouf,,' and such of thf. clergj- as adoj^terl arid uplield it as 'the ministf:rs of Satan,' I.ouis XIV'. f;ri;^o-)f^ed iiossuet to undertake its defence; which }ie did, in two folio volumes, on whicli tf;ri years of his liff: were sfjent. 'We must not believe,' Kanke ob- servf;s, that thf; kirj;^ 'recalled the foiir articles, though the matter v/as sometirries looked f>ri in tliat liglit at Rome. At a much l-'er jjeriorl he would nr>t endure that thelmari Cr^urt should refuse institution to the arlherents of the four articles. He declarefl that he f\n the [Parliaments of I'Vance, one df the Parliament of I';iris, lyvj, specially enumerated some of the rights of the crown nnr] the I'Vench Church. In order- ing the suppression of some writings relating t(; the constitution Unif^cnitus, it forbarle all pers'ms tf; sustain, in jiublic schools or elsewhere, anything contrary to the absolute independence of the crf>wn in temporal matters, in respect to any other power on the earth ; to rliminish the respect rlueto the farions received in I'l-aice anr! the liberties of the Gallican Cfiurch ; to assert the infallibility <)f the }'of)e and his su[)eriority f^ver General f>juncils ; to attack the autliority of the O^uncil oi Constance, anrj especially the flecrees containf;d in its fourth and fifth sessions, renewed by the Council of liale. 'Mie authority IJ/SERTriiS OF THE GAIJ.ICAN CIlURCIf. 73 of the l''>])(:, it was further lai^l flown, fjiif^Jit tf; ho ref^u- latcd by the canons; and it was arlmitterl that tliesc decrees were refr^rrnahle by tlie (ordinary moans of ai)i)eal to a future r,f)iinf:il, unless they had rer.r. ivr.d tl^-. (.int'.c.ui of the Cliiiroh. To {^roliihit the exprf;ssion of fipinions instead fjf waitinj^ to deal with acts is a rule wliich finds little favour arnoiif^ Uritish Enf.^lisli-sj)eakinf( perjph: ; still, some writirif^s are trf;ated by the Mrif^lish laws as treason- able, anrl it was af(ainst practices which were rej^'arderl as treason to the national sovereignty (A I'rance that this arn't wa-. hmnchcd. Under the f'lrst li^mpire, the obligatir^n of teaching the four articles was renewed by an organic law. 'Ihc greatest fjpposition to them, at all times, came from the Jesuits. To-flay, Gallicanism has scarcely more life in the country of its birth thrin in Canarla. After the rleath of Louis XIV., the great body ot the French clergy either grew lukew trrn in their defence oi the ffiiir articles, or flid not to teach them at rdl ; their {irincipril defenders were nowconfinerl to the Parliaments anrl the persecuted Jansf;nists, against whom not less than fifty thousand hllrc% do cachet v/ere issued.* About one-fifth of the articles of the Syllabus arc directed against propositions vvhich liossiiet deduced from the four articles ; or constructed out of the flo;iting drhri'i (A' i])<: Galilean liberties. This fact gives us the connecting link between the V;itican Ojiincil and the Assembly of the French clergy in jf)H2. Our Canarlian Ultramorit.'iues have a jaunty v/ay of stating fjf v/hat the Gallicanism of the present day con- sists. -f It C(;nsists, they tell us, ' in whatever tenrls to * Oriiiin";, T'r'<(;r'-^, ct Limites 'le la puissance t\e.^ Papci.ou iV.laircisicmentisur ies fjuatrc articles flu clcrf,"'' de FrantR, ct sur ic^ libcrt/iS (\e IVj/Jise Oallicane. t Qij«lf|rir,:; t'/., par M(;r. de .Viontrcal et Mgr, dc Kimouiki, etc., etc, etc, par la redaction 'Ju I'ranc I'arkur r-m V} » i ■m ; 41 % \ ' !j t i 74 ROME IN CANADA. exalt tlie civil power to the prejudice of the sovereignty, the independence, and the supremacy of the Church ; in whatever tends to diminish the authority of the Pope, his supremacy in the Church, his superiority over the Councils ; in whatever tends to diminish the authority of the bishops over the inferior clergy ; in the pretension that the authority of the State is necessary to give effect to the acts of the Popes, the bishops, and the cures ; in a bishop pretending to be Pope in his own diocese ; in a priest believing himself to be bishop in his parish.' The modern Gallicanism so painted has two faces, one poli- tical, the other ecclesiastical. This writer described Canadian Gallicanism, in 1873, ^s being confined to two societies of priests, by which he no doubt intended to indicate the Sulpicians of Montreal, and the lilies of Vicar-General Cazeau. Political Gallicanism the Ultra- montanes find in the Code des Cures; in three letters disavowing the principles of the Programme Catholique, which asserted the sovereignty and independence of the Church ; in the refusal of the demand that the unity of the public school system of New Brunswick be broken in the interest of the Church of Rome ; in the writings of certain theologians of Quebec, who did not accept the assertion that the creation of a new parish by a bishop is a legal and binding act without the assent of the civil power : a proposition sustained by the Syllabus, and therefore not to be rejected by the faithful ; in the asser- tion of the right of the State to regulate and limit the acquisition and possession of property by the Church, an assertion condemned by infallible authority. In fine, Gallicanism, in the mouths of Canadian Ultramontanes, is the sum of all villanies. IV. GALLICANISM TRANSPLANTED TO CANADA. The scheme of administration founded by the genius of Colbert, which combined administrative centralization with the separation of the spiritual and temporal powers, continued in force so long as Canada remained a colony of France. The colony, ceasing to be a mission under the rule of the clergy, came under the direction of a secular administration, carried on in the name of the sovereign. That turning point in history where the poli- tical succeeds the religious power had been reached ; a change against which the conduct of the Jesuits some- times formed a practical protest. The edict of Louis XIV. giving effect to the Declara- tion of the French clergy of 1682 was not registered by the Superior Council of Quebec ; but the Galilean liber- ties and franchises were enjoyed in Canada under the French dominion.* The ecclesiastical law of France extended to Canada. *' It is a principle ot French law,' said Lord Brougham, 'that all ordinances not registered are void. They only take effect from the date of their registration.' This was in obedience to the principle of legislation that a law only acquires force after it has been promulgated; and registration was the only mode of publication known in France. This practice was introduced into Canada. But registration in France was not sufficient ; it must be made by the Superior Council of Quebec, which was, except where the king ordered an instrument to be registered, the judge of the adaptability of any ordinance to the condition of the colony. 'The Superior Councils,' says the Nouveaii Dciiisart, ' enjoyed in the colonies the same rights as the sovereign courts in France.' Edicts, reglements, and ordonnances made by the king expressly for New France, were invariably addressed to the Superior Council of Quebec, with an order to register them. But the necessity for registration did not apply to laws made pre- vious to the establishment of the Sovereign Council. It is admitted that the Code AfflrcAa/xi was in force in Canada, though never registered there. In the same way the Droit cominiin ecdesiastique of France had force there without the necessity of registration. 'Mi ■ ( ^^:. , m .; - i 76 ROME IN CANADA. Vicar-General Raymond admits that the principles embodied in the four articles were adopted in the colony. But the opposition of Rome began in time to tell. ' As discussion threw light on the question ' — a lurid and blinding light — ' and certain acts of the Pontifical See contained a practical disapprobation of the errors of Gallicanism, a reformation of ideas took place, and the doctrines taught came to resemble more and more those of Rome.'* Gallican principles formed the guide of the civil tribunals in Canada under the French dominion ;t and after the conquest they continued for some time to be more or less observed, along with an assertion of the rights of the sovereign, from which in France they were never separated. :|: One of the Intendants, Dupuy, in deciding a case against the pretensions of the Church, embodied in his judgment a summary of the four articles. § ' These,' he added, ' are the principles which ought to be taught to the people here ; rather than abuse the chair of truth, from which nothing ought to be preached but obedience to God and the king.' A difference had arisen between the canons of Quebec respecting the rights and dignities of one of them ; and they took the ground that they d'd not recognize the right of any judge in Canada to settle the dispute ; whereupon the Intendant found it necessary to define the powers of the Superior Council of Quebec. || The Intendant claimed for the Superior Council the place which the Parliaments occupied in the different Provinces ♦ Vicar-General Raymond. + Judge Baudry. Code des Cures. t Diet. Univ. S Ordoiinancc 6 me, Janvier, 1728, 11 OrdoHitaiice Janvier 4, 1728. GALLICANISM TRANSPLANTED. 77 of France.* There was no order of men in the colony which was not subject to the correction of this tribunal. The contrary assertion was characterized as a formal disobedience and a seditious independence. The chapter of Quebec wished to retain, besides the mortal remains of the late bishop, his cross, his mitre, and his other pontifical ornaments, contrary to the positive dispositions of his will, by which his body was to be buried m the Church of Notre-Dame-des- Anges. This church had been erected into a parish over which the canons had no control. They, however, resisted theorderfor the burial, and when the hour at which it was to take place arrived, they sounded the tocsin in thsir church, under the false pretence that the General Hospital had taken fire. This brought together a crowd, who rushed to the church where the burial was to take place, the baffled canons marching ' tumultuously and seditiously,' at their head. They threatened to depose the Superio " of the general hospital and interdict the Church of Notre-Dame, which was connected with it. On being ordered to appear be- fore the Superior Council, the chapter and canons re- fused. The Superior Council ordained that they should be constrained by the seizure of their temporalities both in France and Canada. Their pretension that the bishop- ric of Quebec had become vacant by the death of the late L^:hop, while M. Louis Francois de Mornay was co- adjutor with right of succession was alive, was disallowed. f ^ The people,' the ordonnance read, 'cannot know with too great precision that the power proper to ecclesiastics is only over the spiritual, and the things which concern * And this accords with Garneau's estimate of that tribunal. ' Le Roi,' he said, ' fit organiser une cour Superieure sous le nom de Conseil Souvcrain de Qurbec, qui fut i'image du Parlement de Paris. Le reglement supreme de toutcs les affaires de la colonic, tout administiatives que judiciares, fut dOfun'' ii cettu cour, qui rev'ut les inemes pouvoirs que les Cours Souveraines de France.' t Ordonnance 6 Janvier, 1728. ! Wi ir"! y^. !j . 'i I- , J; -'■ *. !< :i: . L t 1^1 78 ROME IN CANADA. the salvation of souls, the orders to be conferred upon ministers of tlic Church, the administration of the sacra- ments, and wliatever results from the sacrament of mar- riage and otlicr sacraments ; and that the other rightsof ecclesiastics and seculars between themselves are purely temporal matters, subject to the power of the king, and to the cognizance of the judges charged with the execu- tion of his justice over all his subjects without distinction, of whom the ecclesiastics ought to show themselves the most submissive.' The Church writers have ceased to deny that the Galli- can liberties were introduced into Canada by France ; and they say it matters little whether the whole body of the droit gnllican was transplanted to the colony or not ; since, on the cessation of the French dominion, the rela- tions which existed between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities underwent a complete change.* The Superior Council of Quebec was, by the edict which created it, empowered to take cognizance of all causes, civil and criminal, and to decide them, in the last resort, according to the laws and ordinances. Pagnuelo contends that the appel conime d'ahns is a part of the droit gallican which was never brought into Canada ; but it is certain that this form of appeal was received by the Superior Council of Quebec from sentences rendered in the Bishop's court, (Officialite) of Quebec. This form of procedure was used in the affair of the canons of Quebec against an ordinance of the bishop (April 24 and June 30, 1693) 5 against M. Deminiac, Vicar-General, the sub- ject of contention being the position of a pew in the church (April 21, 1738) ; and against the chapter of Que- bec, only ten years before the conquest (Jime 30, 1750). This court was at first composed -"''the Governor, the Bishop, and five councillors ; the number of councillors ♦ Pagnuelo. ■f.n GA LUCANISM TRANSPLANTED 79 was increased in 1675 to seven. The JJishop's court {Officialite), from which, accordinpt to M. Montigny, the Sovereign Council received fl/'/'c/5 commc (l'abus,ceased to exist in 1759. In France, the Official was an ecclesiastic to whose jur- isdiction all the clerks of the bishopric or archbishopric were amenable, in purely personal actions. He also had cognizance of four kinds of actions between laymen : tithes anpctitoire, the validity or invalidity of marriage, heresy, and simony. The Official also had cognizance of certain crimes committed by ecclesiastics, but he could impose no other than canonic penalties; and when the crimes wereof anature to be punishedcorporeally or by imprison- ment, they were always tried by the secular judge. The Official was obliged to observe a form of procedure pre- scribed by royal ordonnances.* The Ojjicialite, in Can- ada, was presumably framed on this model ; though it seems to have seldom, some erroneously allege that it never, exercised its functions. It IS well established that, under the French dominion, the common ecclesiastical law of France was in force in Canada. But that this law has since been modified in many particulars, and always in favour of the Church of Rome, is equally indisputable. The civil government interfered in the minutest details of ecclesiastical administration. The intention was to introduce a conformity to the practice and usage ' ob- served in the kingdom of France, where ordinary affairs are never decided but by a majority of the votes of the marguilliers in charge, and extraordinary affairs by calling in the aid of a sufficient number of marguilliers who have gone out of office, the cure being always present.'! When they neglected their duties they were sometimes ordered * Montigny, Histoire du droit Canadien t Ord. du Con. Sup. 12 Fev., 1675 ;i; Ml M ' , \ m I L 1 ■■ f ■i> M-f ii y 'm^ So ROME IN Canada. mm\: m to appear bcloic the Superior Couni.il to answer for their default. They were repeatedly ordered to render honours in the Church to tliose who v.cre entitled, under the scheme of ecclesiastical discipline in force in Canada, to receive them. It was tlicir duty to watch over the property of the FabriquG. I'lit sometimesthe marguilliers were cowed by the au'.lacity of the ecclesiastics, and were alraid to per- form their duty. Thus, when the ecclesiastics of the Seminary of Quebec of their own authority emptied the graves of a little cemetery adjoining the grounds on which their building stood, annexed it to their Seminary, and converted it into a garden ; when they built upon another ^iece of ground which the piety of Sieur Couillardand his wife had given for the use of processions round the Church, Frontenac says the marguilliers were afraid to oppose to the act so much as a remonstrance. The Gov- ernor told them it was desirable that the}' should demand restitution of these lands. The marguilliers having been ordered to attend before the Superior Council, explained that the ground was all contained in the outer enclosure of the Seminary, and that two large doors had been lett for the use of processions. The Governor re- plied that these doors served no other purpose than to admit the passage of cordwood which the ecclesiastics required, and that the carts occupied the ground required lor processions ; that no processions had taken place there for some time, and that there was an evident inten- tion to discontinue them. This wasprophetic ; in process of time the religious processions filled the streets of Que- bec. A hundred and thirty or forty years after this date, Mgr. Plessis laid it down as a rule, that where the Pro- testants were in the majority the processions should be confined to the church ; now they encumber the streets of all our cities. The Council, Frontenac told the negli- gent Marguilliers, should watch over the conservation of GALLICANISM TRANSPLANTED. 8x what belonged to the Fabrique as a public tiling, and he added that the secular judges had the right to examine the accounts of the marguilliers, and that it was their duty to do so when there was reason to believe that an abuse had been committed.* Two ol the marguilliers gave mortal offence to the Governor by remarking, one of them, that the property of the Church would be en- dangered if the secular judges could enquire into the ac- counts of these functionaries ; the other, that were this to happen, they would no longer depend on the bishop. Frontenac complained of these expressions as disrespect- ful towards the magistrates ; and suggested that it might I > necessary to prevent ecclesiastics coming Irom France m future. When the marguilliers had first appeared be- fore the Council, they sarcastically begged to be secured in the right which the Governor ascribed to them, of per- forming the honours of the Church ' except on the days when the Council should appear there in a body.' An arret was passed,t ordering the marguilleirs to give the officers of justice and the members of the West India Company an honourable place in their church, after that of the Council, and in other churches to local officers of justice after the governors of the places and the private seigneurs. Thus the first place was given to the Council, of which the Governor was a member, and to which the marguilliers had intimated their desire to be relieved from the necessity of rendering any honours at all. Endless disputes arose over the order in which honours in the church were to be awarded, and there were num- erous judicial decisions on the subject. The marguil- liers sometimes evinced a reluctance to put others before themselves. The clerk of the Royal Jurisdiction of Mont- real had been in the habit of receiving the pain-hmit be- m P:i I ill . ■ ^ r;;'i * Ord.du Con. Sup. Mars iS, 1675. f 26 Mars, 1675. , • [ ■ W , --^.l 82 ROME IN CANADA. fore the marguilliers, whose jealousy made them resolve to put a stop to the preference, lu vain this officer ot justice pointed to the law wliich provided that the 'sacra- mental bread shall be presented to the Governor, the lieutenant of the king and the officers of the Royal Juris- diction, then to the marguilliers in charge, and indiffe- rently to all who may be found in the church.' The case came before the Intendant, Hoquart, and he ordered the offending marguilliers to appear before him next morning, and that the clerk of the Royal Jurisdiction should con- tinue to enjoy the honours annexed to his charge. In numerous instances priority was ordered to be given to those entitled to it in the social hierarchy, conformably to the rules and ordinances of the king.* The Intendant of Justice, sitting in the King's Court, decided causes according to the rules of the 'discipline of the Church and the ordinances of the king.'f By his judgments, which were calle' ordinances, the sisters of the congregation were forbidden to take vows, and any whici they might take in future were declared null.;}: The Frrres Hospitallers oi Montreal were forbidden to wear the distinctive dress ot the Order; were directed to doff the black capot, the girdle of black silk, and the mus- lin'^^bands, and to confine themselves strictly to the rights accorded in their letters patent of living in community.^ Ihe nunneries were not free from fiscal supervision by the State. Sister Ste. Helene, who had charge of the pro- perty of the Hotel Dieu, Quebec, was required by an ordinance in 1727 to render an account of her stewardship; to furnish a statement of the goods and money she came ■ii i; ♦ Jug. Mars 23, i737' t Ord. Nov 26, 170C. } Dtc. 14, 1708. IT Ord. Ui'c, i70«'- OALLICANISM TRANSPLANTED. 83 into possession of on the death of her predecessor, of what she had received afterwards, and of what was tlien in her possession, and, if required, to be prepared to swear to the correctness of the accounts. The minimum dot which each rehgious was to pay on entering the General Hospital of Quebec was fixed by law at five thousand livres ; and the stipulations concerning the dots of young women who were to enter convents in New France were required to be presented to the Gover- nor-General and the Intendant to be visres before the taking of the veil, and the superiors of religious houses were forbidden to receive and admit to profession any young women until the stipulations regarding the sum they were to pay by way of portion had been so visi-cs.* This restriction of novices to young women whose parents could afford to pay for each of them five thousand livres reduced in the short space of ten years the conven- tual communities to bands of aged and infirm females, and these institutions were rapidly sinking into decay. The high tariff rendered it impossible to fill up the gaps nude by death, owing to the comparative poverty of the inhabitants. As the convents then offered the only means of educating girls, and as it was thought the sick would suffer for want ol the attention which the nunneries, if maintained in greater vigour, could aiTord, the amount of the dot was reduced to three thousand livres.f The rules for enforcing the payment of this amount were the same as those previously laid down. The number of nuns ad- mitted into the General Hospital of Quebec was regulated by law,| and altered from time to time, as the Govern- ment conceived it to be desirable. r I.' \< Hi !' -if'- ;■ l; * Arret du Conseil du Roi Mai 31, 1722. \ Ariet du Conseil d'Etat 15 Mars, 1733. t Lettres Patentes, Avril 1737; Arrut du Conseii d'Etat 1701 ; et Lettres Patentes Mars 1715. f,|^ ' I I f ^ 84 ROME IN CANADA The a(t(;nipt to make the convents .1 sanctuary and a rcfut,'(; for criminals was forbidden. The perniciou;- habit of makin(,' these places a shelter for criminals had been formed by the indiscreet zeal of ecclesiastics and religious ; and the civil law interposed to put an end to the abuse, dangerous at once to the authority of the civil power and the public security. •[ Hut the civil officers were to enter the convents in search of secreted criminals only in case there were good reasons to believe the law had been vio- lated, and even then they were not to enter unless in urgent cases till the authority of the l)ishop or one of the Vicars-General had been obtained. The civil officers, on entering a convent, were to notify one of the priests to be present ; and the minute of the proceedings to be drawn up was to state the fact of his presence. Under the 2Syth article of the Custom of Paris mis- sionaries were incapable of receiving wills, though fixed cun-s were not under the same disability. This prohi- bition was removed by an ordinance of 1722. To wills so received there must be three male witnesses, twenty years of age ; and mention had to be made in the instru- ment that it had been dictated by the testator and after- wards read and re-read to him. So great were the pre- cautions against fraud. As seigneurs of Sillery, the Jesuits had, like the Sulpi- cicions of Montreal, been entrusted with the administra- tion of justice in the higher as well as in the lower jurisdic- tion. Their powers over the higher jurisdiction were withdrawn in 1707, not only in respect to this seignory, but also in respect to lands they held in fief in Three Rivers. t Two priests, M. Romy and de Francheville, on refus- ing to obey an order to appear before the Superior Council IT Ordonnance 19 Fev, 1732. + Ord. Get. 22, 1707. I i„:J. GALLIC ANISM TRAS'SPLANTFD. 85 of Quebec, had a fine imposed upon them. The Abbo do Fenelon, who had been a missionary to the Irttqiiois at the Bay of Kaiitc, attacked Governor Fronten.ic in a ser- mon dehvereil in the parish church of Montreal, in which, among otlier tilings, it was intimated that he did not pay due respect to the priests. Frontenac demanded a copy ol the sermon, which Fenelon refused to give. • I pro- nounced my discourse,' the priest said, 'before two hun- dred persons; incjuire of t!iem if you will. If I be inno- cent, there is nothing to be asked of me; if I be guilty, which I lormally deny, no one has a right to ask me to supply materials for my own condemnation.' After refus- ing to give a copy of the sermon the priest, brought be- fore the Superior Council, denied the competency of that tribunal. The Council stopped all parley by sending him to prison. The i^riest appealed to the ecclesiastical court, which he pretended was alone competent to deal with the case. Besides, he objected to be tried by judges who were friends of the Governor, and who had received their appointments from him. The Council having ordered the Vicar-General and Official, M. de Bernieres, to appear before it, reprimanded him, and warned him not again to entertain requests of the nature of that addressed to him by M. de Fenelon. This priest was sent to France in the autumn of 1674, and when the case came before the notice of the king, Louis XIV. said: 'I blame the action of the Abb6 Fenelon, and I have ordered him not to return to Canada.' But there were difficulties about pro- ceeding criminally against Fenelon, or requiring the priests of Saint Sulpice to appear against him. The king, apparently moved by motives of prudence, temporized. He thought it would be best to allow the accused's bish- op or Vicar-General to mete out to him ecclesiastical penalties. It may have crossed the mind of the king that neither of these ecclesiastics might adopt his view of the liii! 1' li I ^r •it' i'' 'is' M, ,t ■ L [ !« " :i« ,•: ( ■ '■ ■■■ •■ : ' ! '' ; ■ ,1' '■ • i; ;i ' 1 iSLLJli'i.l, 86 ROME IN CANADA. complaint, or do what was required of him ; for he pro- posed, as the alternative of such punishment, which Fene- lon was to be sent to Canada to undergo, that the offen- der should be arrested and re-conveyed to France.* The civil authority assumed absolute power over the per- sonal liberty of the accused, implying a legal right to take cognizance of the complaint. When M. Charon, founder of the General Hospital of V'Memarie, (Montreal), desired to establish a community of Maitres a" ecloles, M. de Pontchartrain, Ministei of Marine, prohibited him from forming a religious community. The Hospitalieres performed their functions by the authority of letters patent from the king. On a dispute between Bishop Laval and the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, M. Talon, Intendant-General, adjudicated. M. de Saint Vallier desired the Sisters of the Congregation to make a vow of obedience to himself as bishop, but the Govern- ment forbade them to make any vows whatever.f On the installation of Bishop Pontbriand, successor of Laval, the king remarked that the bulls and provisions conveyed by the Pope having been examined by his Coun- cil and found to contain nothing contrary to the privi- leges, franchises and liberties of the Galilean Church, he would permit the new bishop to take the oath of fidelity, j This shows that if Louis XIV. had consented, contrary to what he and the Parliament of Paris had contended was the true intent of the Concordat, to allow the Pope to appoint the first bishop, Laval, he now showed that the crown would not forego its right of examining and passing upon the bulls granted to a new bishop. The Canadian bishops, under the French regime, were re ♦ Ferlarid. Hist, du Canada. \ Faillon. Memoirs paniculiers pour servir k I'Histoire de I'Eglise de I'Amerique du Nord. I E'^mond Lareau. Hi^toire de la litterature Canadien.x. GALLICANISM TRANSPLANTED. 87 quired to take the oath of fidelity to the crown ;§ a pro- ceeding against which the Pope protested without effect. No religious order could be created in the colony with- out the authority of the kinj^, and the Sisters of the Con- gregation were at one time expressly prohibited from being cloistered or taking vows. The amount of tithe payable, instead of following the rule of the canon law, was regulated by the Government, and was not always invariable in amount. A multitude of edicts, ordi- nances, and arrets of the Council of State regulated and enforced the discipline of the Church. The decrees of the Inquisition, under which, in New Spain, torrents of blood were shed, were never admitted in Canada. But there were other contrasts between the ecclesiasti- cal discipline of Canada and of New Spain of a different kind, which it may be convenient now to point out. Excepting reserved cases, the Pope never had any direct authority in the Spanish American colonies. What- ever pontifical authority was exercised there entered through the prism of royal authority. || All bulls, briefs, dispensations, indulgences, were required to be sent from Rome to the King of Spain, who committed their examin- ation to ths Council of the Indies, and on the report of that body their execution was permitted or refused. All persons connected with the ecclesiastical administration, from the porter of the cathedral to the bishop, were ap- pointed by the king. No cathedral, no parish church, no monastery, no hospital could be founded within the Span- § The following is from the oath taken by Bishop Pontbriand : — ' Sire, — I Henry- Marie du Brail de Pontbriand, Bishop of Quebec, swear in the most holy and sacred name of God, and promise your majesty, that I will be, as long as I ive, your faithfuj subject and servant, that I will procure with all my power the good and the service cf the State, that I will not enter into any council, design, or enterprise to the prejudice of the same, and if any such thing should come to my knowledge, I will make it known to your majesty. So help me God, and the Holy Gospels by me touched. — Signed, H. M. Du Breil de Pontbriand, Eveque de Quebec' II Depons. Voyage dans I'Amerique meridionale M h 1= 88 ROME IN CANADA. ish dominions in America without express authority from the king of Spain. If archbishops, bishops, and abbt';s were nominated by the Pope, it was only on the spontan- eous presentation of the king. The canonries were dis- posed of in the same way. PluraHties were absolutely prohibited. It was the duty of the bishops to turnish the king an account of the vacant benefices in their dioceses, with a statement of their revenues and the names of the individuals most worthy to fill them. Candidates were required to apply to the viceroys, by whom the applica- tions were forwarded to Spain. The representative of the king nominated to the cures ; the bishop offered three names from which the selection was made. When, in the lapse of time, the nomination became a mere formality, from the practice of selecting the first name on the list, the jealousy of the crown prevented it from being formally abandoned. In 1770, the orders of the king made it obli- gatory on the viceroy to select the first name on the list, unless there were good reasons for not doing so. Native priests had the preference over Spaniards ; and no foreign born priest, unless he had obtained letters of naturaliza- tion, Wcts allowed to possess any benefice. All questions arising out of the exercise of patronage were referred to the Council of the Indies. To the Pope nothing was left but the barren privilege of granting the necessary bulls. The bishops paid annates to the king, not to the Pope. At first the amount was only a twelfth ; but in time the bishoprics, like all other benefices, were required to pay the first year's income under the name of annuidad. As it would often be oppressive to exact the whole year's re- venue in one year, the payment came to be divided into six parts and spread over as many years. The oath taken by the bishops on their installation obliged them to respect, in every particular, the royal patronage, and to oppose no obstacle to the exercise of the right of collect- GALLICANTSM TRANSPLANTED. 89 ing the royal dues. Until he presented a ccrtifia that he had taken this oath, the new bishop could not enter on his charge. Appeals to Rome were confined to reserved causes. The Bishop's Courts were each composed of the bishop, the fiscal proctor, and the provisor. Appeals from their decisions went before the archbishop, whose judg- ment, however, was not necessaiily final except as against the appellant. The second appeal did not go, in the as- cending order, to the Pope, but to the nearest bishop, and his judgnif^nt was definitive. These ecclesiastical courts of Spanish Amf^rica came into collision with the v_'vil tri- bunals ; and in the clash of jurisdiction the secular au- thority had a tendency to prevail. While the ecclesiasti- cal jurisdiction embraced all purely spiritual causes, the secular tribunals had concurrent authority, even though botli litigants were ecclesiastics. Causes arising out of the payment of ecclesiastical tithes wf.re treated as mixti fori, and might come either under the ecclesiastical or the lay jurisdiction. The process in the ecclesiastical courts followed the forms of the secular tribunals. If the ecclesiastical courts were swifter in their action and less expensive, they were still far from perfection. The right of asylum, which the Popes made a point of main- taining, and which shielded from arrest the worst male- factors who took refuge in the churches, often paralyzed the arm of justice.* I have dwelt at some length on this subject, because it is not generally understood that Nev/ Spain was r; ^rtured in stricter ideas of national predominance than New France. ♦ If we are to credit Clavijo (Noticias de la Historia General de las Islasde Can- aria), a similar right of asylum was observed by the natives of the Canary Islands, to whom Christianity was unknown : . . , Ningun privilegio apreciahan tanto como al de hacer todas los dias & la Divinidad sus libaciones de leche en medio del Temp'o, cuyo sagrada era un asyloy lugar de refigio, 4ue nadie violaba impuneniente. fii I' i 1% m *: ap i 4 " 90 /?0M£ /AT CANADA. V. THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. The early Jesuit missionaries in Canada were men to whom it would be impossible to deny the possession of many virtues. Their life, when in the depths of the forest, where they confined themselves to their proper vocation, was one of heroic self-sacrifice. The story oi their mis- sionary labours, the perils they encountered, the deaths they courted at the hands ot savages whom they went to save — through famine and pestilence and fatigue beyond the power of the most robust to endure — have often been told, and well told, generally with a spice of allowable eulogy. But there was another side to their character ; and of that side but very little is popularly known. When they emerged from the forest and took up their quarters at the centres of political power, they sometimes engaged in intrigues hostile to the Government, and propagated principles the reverse of Gallican, which struck at the root of civil authority. In their attempt to make of Canada another Paraguay, in which their sway should be absolute and complete, they so far succeeded as to overthrow the tolerant policy of Sully, to chase the Huguenots from the colony, and to prevent the teaching therein of any doctrine contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church. This prohibition is repeated in a number of public documents, issued under the authority of the King's Council and the Parliament of Paris. This prohibition accorded well with the policy of establishing a National Church in the colony ; for if Rome was an enemy of the king, New England Protes- THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 91 tantism was an enemy of another kind, and there was the same necessity, it was then thought, for holding both in check. Besides, though the Jesuits somet'.mes proved trouble- some at the centres of colonial power, they were often of essential service to the French Crown when attending to their spiritual duties on distant missions. In the depths of the forest, along a border line of territory disputed by two colonizing nations, and surrounded by hostile tribe} , to conciliate the good will of which each nation was try- ing, the Jesuit missionaries might so exercise their influence as to be of great service to the French Govern- ment ; and that they did so exercise it, M. L. Dussieux,* after reading all the documents relating to Canada in the archives in the Marine and War Departments, avers. f Charlevoix, himself a Jesuit, says the presence of a priest among the Indians was often of more value than a whole garrison ; and he cites the example of I'linois, which, since the year 171 7, had been incorporated in the Government of Louisiana, as a proof of the great im- portance, in a political point of view, of sending mission- aries among the other tribes. He points to the experience of two centuries in proof that the best means of attaching the Indians to France was to convert them.;}: As late as 1725, a priest of Saint Lazare, who had person''! knowledge of the country, addressed to the French Government a programme for the civil as well as the spiritual government of the colony. He recom- mended that the Jesuits be maintained among the Iroquois * Le Canada sous la Domination Fran^aise, d'apres les archives de la marine et de la guerre. + The military school of Saint Cyr, in which M. Dussieux is a lecturer, receives a large supply of scholars from a Jesuit college in Paris, a fact which may account for suppression of this statement in a second edition of his Work on Canada. But fact cannot so easily be blotted out. Histoire Ginirale de la NouvelU France. ( 111 ' ; i'ii 1 9a /JOVii IN CANADA. m m sifi j -' for political reasons, since, in his opinion, they alone were capable of preventing them from becoming attached to the enemies of France. § Frontenac has left it on record that the Jesuits did, in his time, make an attempt to grasp the whole authority of the colony in their hands. In every family they set a spy ; from every pulpit they denounced all who opposed their pretensions, not sparing even the Governor himself. The ecclesiastical superiors, when remonstrated with, readily joined in blammg the preachers ; at the same time apologizing for conduct which they could not defend, by attributing it to an excess of zeal. The Governor affected to be satisfied with this explanation ; but he took care to state that, if the offence were repeated, he would ' put the preacher in a place where he would learn how to speak.' This had the effect of restraining the license of the pulpit for a while ; but the Jesuits never abandoned the attempt to exalt, in the minds of the people, their own authority over that of the Government, even in secular matters. By means of hired spies and an abuse of the confessional, they possessed themselves of the secrets of every family. The use they made of this information was tO tell husbands what their wives had confessed, and mothers the weaknesses of their daughters. ' They aimed,' saj^s Frontenac, ' to establish a species of Inquisition a thousand times worse than that of Italy or Spain.' The Governor remonstrated against this conduct, but without effect. He at last threatened that the first spy who should circulate a scandal about his neighbour, without good proof, would be treated as a calumniator, who set public authority at defiance. These statements of Frontenac are in perfect accord with the evidence of Baron de Lahontan, who spent part i Ferland. Cours d'Histoire du Canada, Vol.11. }. ■f THE yESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 93 of the winter of 1684-5 at Montreal.* The all-pervading espionage of the Jesuits rendered life at Ville Marie miserable. No one could have or attend a pleasure party, engage in diversions, or visit ladies, without coming under the censure of the priest, who spoke ot them pub- licly in the church and named the offenders. A noble lady would be refused admission to the com- munion on account ot the colour of her head-dress. In our day. Bishop Bourget has contented himself with crying down crinoline, without making the offence of wej^ring it a cause for refusing the sacraments. f The Jesuits made the wearing of a mask a cause of excommu- nication. They watched the conduct of the wives and daughters of the citizens witli a vigilance greater than that exercised by husbands and mothers. They condemned to the flames all books which did not treat of devotion. Fmding the Adventures of Petronc, the property of Baron de Lahontan, and which he professes to have valued more highly than his life, in the house of his host, the priest tore it up in a rage. Lahontan vowed that if he could have found the priest when he first saw the destruction he had made, he would have plucked out his beard. No one was allowed to play lansquenet, or to read a romance or a comedy, on pain of excommunication. In our day the priest Villeneuve writes a comedy of five hundred pages, which is a series of elaborate libels. The Jesuits desired to monopolize all the secrets of society themselves ; and for this reason they denied the right of the Recollets to hear confessions.! A rupture had taken place between Bishop Laval and the Governor, on the subject of permitting or prohibiting it: I' j '•;, I ■m ♦ Nouveaux Voyages de M. Le Baron de Lahontan, dans L'Amirique septentrionale. i Circulaire 26 Novr. i860, { Pope Urban VIII., in 1635, gave the Recollets the necessary powers to resume their mission in Canada. — Faillon, Vie de Madmoiselle Mance. I j •- ■ M i' 11 r:.; «'■■ 94 ROME TN CANADA. the sale of brandy to the Indians. The Governor con- tended for a regulated traffic ; the bishop for a total pro- hibition of the commerce.* The Governorj however, rigorously forbade any one to take brandy to the Indians in the woods. The Jesuits, to whom Frontenac was obnoxious, and who were glad of a pretext for assailing him, took part with the bishop in denouncing the traffic and the Governor. The Jesuits were powerful enough to make bishops, and unmake governors. The bishopric of Quebec had been founded at their suggestion, and the first bishop was their choice. By their intrigues, three governors had been removed in rapid succession. And now they had turned their artillery upon Frontenac, with the same design. But, being a relation ol Madame de Maintenon, his credit at Court enabled him to brave the fury of the Je.jUits for the period often j^ears. The bishop had gone to France to try to induce the Court to accept his views on the brandy traffic ; and while he was there, Frontenac wrote a letter to the king, in which he describes the annoyance to which he was sub- jected by the Jesuit priests. f He describes the bishop as being in a state of absolute dependence on the Jesuits, and expresses the hope that, should that functionary re- sign, a successor would be appointed who was not under that baleful influence. The Jesuits denied the power of the sovereign to author- ize this traffic ; it was, they said, one of the things over which his authority did not extend ; it belonged to the domain of the Church. These statements were made in the pulpit, in the presence of the Governor So great was the annoyance he felt at being obliged to listen to them, that he several times felt tempted to interrupt the * Histoire de Veau de vie en Canada, written by a priest at the time of the dispute. + Frontenac d Monseigneur MS. Archives de Paris. i : THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 95 sermon by leaving the church with his guards. But he contented himself with visiting the Vicar-General and the Superior of the Jesuits, and complaining to them of the conduct of the offending priests. Frontenac brought the powerful weapon of ridicule into play against the ecclesiastics who attacked his authority and endeavoured to thwart his policy. He is said to have employed, with questionable taste, actors and danc- ing girls in the castle of St. Louis, and even in some of the religious houses, in presence of the inmates, to per- form comedies in ridicule of ecclesiastics whom he desir- ed to belittle in the public estimation.* His quarrel was with the Jesuits and the bishop under their control. Partly out of rivalry, perhaps, but mainly on account of the difference in the conduct oi the two religious orders, he favoured the RecoUets. He stated, at his own dinner table, in 1678, in the presence of the bishop and Father Hennepin, a Recollet missionary, that he should make the Court acquainted with the zeal of the Recollets and the generous nature of their enterprises.f His will con- tained a direction that his body should be buried in the church of this order in the city of Quebec, to which, Miles says, he had granted the land on which their house was built, had materially aided other of their es- tablishments, ' and professed to be a sort of trustee in their behalf, as well as a protector.' What the Jesuits were then doing, u. derthe French dominion, they are repeating to-day. Are they destined to meet a similar check ? k like success ^.hey cannot have. The age was intolerant. The New England Puritan, who had fled across the seas to secure an asylum in which he could exercise his religion in safety, became in * Miles. The History of Canada under the French Regime, f Hennepin, Description de la Louisiane. I \. r: I ! I M . I" Mi i f. s 1' ^1 If > I! 96 ROME IN CANADA. turn a persecutor. But the malady passed away with the evil time. Not so with the Jesuit : his spirit is as in- tolerant to-day as it was two hundred years ago, and lie is busy in repeating attacks which in the sixteenth cen- tury he made on the authority of the colonial govern- ment of France, of which Frontenac so bitterly com- plained. When Nova Scot'i. passed, by the Treaty of Utrecht, under the crown of England, the priests persuaded the Acadians to refuse to take the oath of allegiance to their new master. ' I do verily believe,' said Lieutenant- Governor Doucette, in a letter to the Secretary of State, November 5, 1717, * all would become subjects of His Majesty if it were not for the priests amongst them,' who made them believe that the Pretender would soon be placed on the throne, and Canada would again iall under the French dominion. There was nothing in the form of the oath to which any objection could be made. It only required the Acadians to ' declare and most solemnly swear before God to own him (the king of Great Britain) as our sovereign king, and to obey him as his true and lawful subjects.' No abjuration was required, and the free exercise of their religion was to be granted to the new subjects. One priest, with whom Governor Phi- lipps had an interview, urged as reasons why they could not become subjects of England, that they had signed a paper which obliged them to remain subjects of France, and that such a declaration of a change of allegiance would render their lives insecure by arousing the wrath of the Indians, whom, far from having reasons to fear, they had reduced to the most submissive obedience. The king of France, had in the act of handing over these subjects to another sovereign, released them from their oath, which could only oblige them to serve him so long as their '-elation of subjects to him remained unaltered. THE JESUITS AXD THE CIVIL TOWER. 97 ' It is a hard and uneasy task in my circmnstances,' Governor Pliilipps wrote to Secretary Cra^'^'s, May 26, 1720, ' to manage a people that will neither hearken to reason (unless it comes out of the mouths of their priests) and at the same time to keep up the honour and dignity ot the Government.' Unless the oath were taken or the priests recalled, Philipps believed that, in the event ot war again breaking out between the two crowns, the Acadians would be so many enemies in the midst of the country. The priests may have fell the fear with which they inspired their flocks : that if the Acadians took the oath they would, in a short time, be reduced to the condi- tion of the Catholics of Ireland ; but that the former sub- jects of France could retain their allegiance to the nation that had been obliged to cede their territory to a rival was too grotesque a notion to be seriously entertained by the men by whom it was instilled into the minds of the sim- ple peasants. It was these misleading guides of the Aca- dians who forced them at last to choose between allegiance to the new sovereign and deportation. If Basil, the Blacksmith, with a face flushed and distorted with pas- sion, cried : ' Down with the tyrants of England ! We never have sworn them allegiance,' the true reading of the history is that the Father Feli- cians had inspired him with that passion, instead of meekly praying for the new masters : *' O Father forgive them ! "* Admit that the deportation was a mistake, a cruelty, and a wrong, what then ? It still remains true that the real authors of it are the men who mduced the simple Acadians to believe that they could continue to be French subjects in a British colony. Those who took the oath were allowed to re- ! n 1; :,rJl I' ; "■' 1 * Longfellow. Evangeline. i» S n ''\-i I. jll. 98 ROME n: CANADA. tain their possessions. t The French of Cape Hrcton, who could still legally indulge their original allcgi.iuce, exercised a paramount influence not only over their coun- trymen in Nova Scotia, but also over the Indians. The Bishop of Quebec continued to send priests to Nova Scotia, to order the building of churches there and to ex- ercise other acts of authority. Governor Armstrong des- paired of seeing the people brought to obedience unless • the insolent behaviour of these priests ' couiu !."' curbed.* When the inhabitants asked to have the services of a priest, the British Governor seems to have had no oth^r resource than to write to the Governor of Cape Breton to send him one who would be likely to prove inofTensive.f Sometimes priests were sent out of the Province for con- duct ' tending to a jurisdiction of their own, independent of his majesty's authority' and the civil government ;| and when one gave in his submission, under circumstances which threw a doubt on his sincerity, he was required to find security for his future good behaviour, as a condi- tion of his remaining in the Province.§ The use of the confessional as a means of restoring pro- perty wrongfully taken by thepenitent has been much ex- tolled. Governor Mascareneof Nova Scotia, June 29, 1741, complained that this power was sometimes greatly abused; so much so that 'the missionaries often went so far as to make themselves sovereign judges of all causes.' Then follows the example of a parishioner who complains to a priest that his neighbour owes him a debt or detains something belonging to him. The priest examines witnesses, and -f The ' French Popish missionary is the real chief commander of his flock, and re- ceives and takes his commands from his superiors in Cape Breton.' P, Mascarene 1720, in Nova Scotia Archives. ♦ Despatch to Lords of Trade, Nov. 16, 1731. t Gov. Armstrong to St, Ovide, June 17, 173a. t Minutes of N.S. Council, May 18,1736. I Minutes of N. S. Council, Oct. 11, 1726. THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 00 thon, deciding in a judicial manner, condemns the accused to make restitution ; the execution of the sentence being enforced by a threat to refuse the sacratjicnts fornoncom- pHancc* In New Spain, the confessors made a resti- tution of duties withheld from the king a condition of ab- solu'.ion. The confessor was generally the channel through which restitution was made. The Spanish Gov- ernment, it was estimated, was defrauded of $400,000 every year in America ; and of this amount only $500 was restored. As a means of ensuring restitution, the coiilessional would seem to be a very inadequate instru- ment. When it does cause something wrongfully obtained or detained to be restored, if it makes the mere confession and disgorgement a condition of for;;iveness, it is not likely to act as a spur to the perform 1 ice of duty. The absolute subordination of the missionaries to their superiors was found a cause of much difficulty.;}: The Vicar-General of the Bishop of Quebec, in Nova Scotia, promised obedience. Finally no priests were allowed to enter the Province without leave. § None were to presume to exercise any ecclesiastical power of the Church of Rome therein ; the tourteenth article of the treaty of Utrecht granted Roman Catholics the free exercise of their religion, 'so far as the lawsof Great Britain permit.' The rule came to be that no priest could exercise his spi- ritual tunctions until he received the approbation of the commander-in-chief and of the Council; and no mission- ary was allowed to remove from one parish to another without first obtaining leave from the Government.!] The Bishop of Quebec claimed the right of sending into the Province missionaries at discretion. For assuming the * Governor's Letter-Book. t Governor Mascarene to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 23, 1741. § Mascarene, June 16, 174a. II Mascarene, June 16, 1742. I: W wm 1 i til ' VI ' '• lOO ROME IN CANADA. illi til' *l. lit: title of Vicars-General two priests were ordered to leave the Province.* The missionaries of the French at Louisburg, acting in the conjunction with the priests, brought over the Indians of Nova Scotia to thsir sAei at a critical juncture. M. J. L. LeLoutre, a missionary priest, wrote, in the form of a petition and in the name ot the inhabitants of Cobequid, to the inhabitants of Beaubassin, asking them to strike a blow with a view of driving the Rangers from his parish, after which he promised that his parishioners should go to Grand Pre and Port Royal and strike suc- cessive blows at these places. * It is your brothers,' he assured them, * who ask you for help ; and we think that the charity, religion, and union that have always existed between us will constrain you to come and rescue us.'| Another priest, Daudin, acted so badly that he had to be suspended from his functions for some time and placed under arrest. These samples of the conduct of the priests justified the suspicion that when war broke out their influence would be used on the side of the French. It is reasonable to suppose that the priests did cling to the hope that the fortunes of war would one day restore Acadia to France. Even so astute a statesman as Talleyrand believed that the Canadians would of their own accord return to the French dominion. § One of the first results of the persis- tent opposition of the priests to the English dominion was a resolution oome to by the Government not to grant any nnconceded lands to Roman Catholics ; and the de- portation of the non-jurors, whatever we may now think of * Gov. Mascarene to Sec. of State, Dec, 3, 1742. t Gov. Masca'sne to the "^^ords of Trade, Sept. 22, 1744. J This piece is not dated, but it was written after the year 1749. Nova Scotia Archives. § Essai 6ur les avantages k retirer de colonies nouvelles dans les circonBtances pn'isentes, an V. THE yESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. loi it, presented itself to the minds of the English as a mea- sure of stern necessity which offered the only means of safety and self-protection.* The future influence of the Jesuits in Canada depends in a great measure upon their being able to get control of the education of the young. Several years ago they formed the design of establishing an university at Mont- real ; and in order to show the necessity for such an in. stitution, they found it necessary to undertake to prove that the University of Laval did its work in an unsatis- factory way, and did only a small portion of what was required of it. It desired, they said, to limit the number of students to one hundred, while they alleged there were in the Province five or six times that number who were desirous of obtaining an university education. Large numbers of these, resident in Montreal, could not or would not go to Laval. The distance and the expense of attending it were obstacles in the way ; the teaching was erroneous in more than one respect. The fury of the opposition to the teaching of Laval was sometimes car- ried so far as to describe u r-s atheistical. Five or six hundred young Canadians, it was pretended, who desired an university education, were either deprived ol it or driven to Protestant universities or schools affiliated with them, where their faith and morals were exposed to terrible dangers. Yet Laval, the criminatory argument continued, pla)'ed dog in the manger ; what she could not or would not do herself she debarred the Jesuits trom doing. She was a * Abbe Raynal's one-sided account of the treatment the Acadians received from the British Government aviden'.ly formed the groundwork of Loi.gfellow's Evange- line, and Ha\-.huTton's History oy Nova Scotia failed to reconstruct the facts, partly because he knew scarcely anything of the archives ot the country whose history he was writing, and partly because his political success depended on the favour of a con- stituency in whicli there were French votes enough to defeat any candidate. What I have said, without attempting to justify the deportation, will serve to show that the measure was not resolved upon without great and long-continued provocation. li' : f-,.i ^ f ' M vi.^ *i' ^i m '''■' I ■'3, : 'H, ,'r. ■ ■; ii 1' 1 TOS ROME IN CANADA. monopolist, an obstructionist, an enemy of progress, instead of being, as was hoped at her birth, the Sorbonne of New France. The Bishop of Montreal was exceedingly anxious to promote the project of the Jesuits, but he was opposed by a majority of the Episcopate of the Province, including the Archbishop ; and, what was worse, his scheme and the scheme of the Jesuits was twice vetoed at Rome, first in 1862, and afterwards in 1865. At a later period, 1872, the Bishop of Montreal represented that the opposition of Rome had ceased ; and though the necessary authority for the canonical erection of the projected university was still withheld, it was only withheld from motives of policy. The President of the Sacred Congregation sug- gested that much trouble migl t be avoided if the neces- sary charter were first obtained from the civil authority, and he sustained the objection by pointing to the difficul- ties which had been created by the canonic erection of the University of Dublin before the Government had granted a charter. The Bishop of Montreal, after the refusals he had met at Rome, had asked the President of the Sacred Congregation to be allowed * to return to the charge ; ' and the granting of his lequest, which really meant no more than that he was not commanded to forego his importunity, was tortured by the Jesuits mto an assent to their project. An assent it no doubt implied, but with conditions, and the problem was to obtain the charter. To this concession only two of the bishops were favour- able, those of Montreal and Three Rivers. Against the opposition of the majority of the bishops and th,"t of the University of Laval the charter could not be obtained. If the Jesuits were busy at Montreal, at Three Rivers, at Rome, the Rector of the U niversity of Laval was not idle ; he induced a majority of the bishops to pronounce against the design of the Jesuits and the Bishop of ^Montreal. THE 'JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 103 The letters in which they did so having been published by the authorities of Laval, were subjected to violent cri- ticism, and treated with jeering ridicule and undisguised contempt by the Jesuits and their friends. In re-publish- ing extracts from them, these hostile critics interjected long passages in parentheses, much longer than the letters themselves, containing what they contended the bishops ought to have said ; a mode, scarcely polite, of saying that they told not the truth. Let us cite a lew examples. The Bishop of Ottawa having said : ' I believe, M. Le Recteur, that you are right, aftei having made all the sacrifice? which you have not feared to impose upon yourselves in the past, in asking the Government to see that your rights are not sacrificed,' the critic* remarks : ' The thing, however, would be difficult, and it would re- quire all your ability to succeed ; if jour rights are not so certain and irrefragable that they may not be disregarded, as I had the honour and the advantage to do when I obtdired an university charter for my college of Saint ^Dseph. I thank you for not having, at that time, put forward your present pretensions ; not that I should have been prepared to admit them, for it would have been easy to prove that other Catholic universities were pos- sible as v/ell as yours, even at Ottawa, that is in the eccle- siastical Province of Quebec, bi t your reclamations would have caused contestations and disputes, things for which I have little or no liking.' Then the Bishop is allowed to speak in the next sen- tence of his letter : ' It seems to me that after the sentence which has been delivered at Rome, and not yet been re- voked, which maintains the right of the University of Laval, it is not allowable for good Catholics to oppose, directly or indirectly, a decision which ought to be res- pected and followed, at least until it is revoked.' What * La Redaction de Franc-Parhur. if- 1 R 1 *! Si Si I ■r liii i; : ! ■ t m I ' ;■ 104 ROME IN CANADA. 1'^: the bishop ought to have said, according to the cham- pion of the Jesuits, is : 'At least that the thing should not be regarded, as I believed myself entitled to regard it, when the university charter for my college of Saint Joseph was granted, in spite of the sentence of the Holy See in 1865, without my ceasing on that account to be a good Catholic ; that is to say, to be able to act thus, that the Holy See has several times expressed the desire that the civil power should remove all the difficulties, so that the Holy See would have no difficulty in permitting what it had at first deemed inexpedient.' The Bishop of Rimouski having stated that he should see with extreme regret ' the rights of the University of Laval set aside, and the immense sacrifices it had made rendered useless by the legislative concession to other institutions, in the Province of Quebec, of the power of conferring degrees to Catholics,' the Jesuits' champion interjects, as what the bishop ought to have said : ' What is essential for your cause, M. Le Recteur, is to establish your right to exist alone, if I judge by your own memoirs, which I have under my eyes, and which ir- refragably establish the contrary, and that in twenty dif- ferent places ; for example, at page 28 of the memoir of 1862, where you affirm that, contrary to the statement of the Bishop of Montreal, you have neither asked for nor obtained a charter for a Provincial university.' Never, surely, was so weighty an argument hung upon so slender a peg. The Bishop proceeded to remark that the circumstances under which Rome had given its decision had not chang- ed ; whereupon the Jesuits' champion interjects, as what the Bishop ought to have said : * Before making use of this argument, it will be necessary to assure yourself whether Mgr. of Montreal had not been authorized one way or another, this circumstance being of a nature to «ii. ... THE yE SUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 105 act as a strong inducement to the Legislature to favour the creation of an university at Montreal.' The Jesuits as little respect a decision come to at Rome, on a controverted question in which they are interested, as they would a decision of the Legislature refusing them the charter for i/hich they ask. The Bishop of St. Hyacinthe had ' no difficulty or hesitation in affirming that the University of Laval has the right to be maintained in the position assigned to it by the sentence delivered at Rome.' On which, the champion of the Jesuits remarks that the Bishop ought to have said : * That, in order to comply with this condition, you should not confine yourself to of- fering the establishment of university chairs for Montreal ; but that you should do so on acceptable conditions, with- out which the sentence of the Holy See has no longer its raison d'etre.'' The Archbishop of Quebec made two voyages to Rome, one in 1862, the other in 1864, to sustain the rights of the University of Laval against the attempts of the Jesuits practically to supersede it by the establishment of a university at Montreal. Both parties were heard be- fore the decrees of the Sacred Congregation were rendered. * To consider oneself authorized,' said the Archbishop, ' to infringe upon these decrees, before they have been revoked by the high authority by which they were render- ed, would be to reverse all the notions of the Catholic hierarchy.' It would naturally be supposed that such vehement advocates of the authority of Rome as the Jesuits and their friends are, on ordinary occasions, would have accepted this view ofthe Archbishop without question. On the contrary, he is told that he ought to have said : * It is true that the Bishop of Montreal may have had permission to return to the charge, as lie had after the sentence of 1862, and one could not deny this possibility without being blind and foolish. To consider m\ xo6 ROME IN CANADA. a< .'' oneself authorized to deprive him ol this liberty, if it has been given him by theCardin:;! Prefetof the Propaganda, it would be necessary to reverse all the notions of the Catholic hierarchy ; for we know that when the Prefet of the Roman Congregations permits a tning to be done it is not for the bishop or the archbishop to oppose it.' But the Jesuit university is not yet. Let no one, how- ever, suppose that the project is abandoned. At Rome, the question was, five years ago, little more than one of the prudence of taking the initiative. If a charter had been obtained from the Legislature of Quebec, Laval would have found itself deprived of support at Rome. The sentiment which would protect Lavalout of considera- tion for the sacrifices she has made, is feeble compared with the advantages which the Jesuits represent as cer- tain to result from the realization of their plan. The immense difference between one hundred students receiv- ing an university education and six times that number enjoying the adv^antage, is one of those broad statements which produce an unerring effect on the public mind. The alleged fact must be more than half fiction ; for if only a hundred students seek access to Laval, is it pro- bable that six times that number are anxious to obtain an university education ? The population is too small and the Province of Quebec too poor to permit us to ac- cept such a conclusion. The danger of allowing the sons of Catholic parents to attend Protestant universities can, by a little artful exaggeration, which is certainly not wanting, be made to count for much. The question of establishing a branch of the University of Laval at Montreal has no longer an active existence. Unless the Jesuits were permitted to control it, they would not accept the arrangement as an accommodation of their difference with the University of Laval. The Bishop of Montreal notified the Primate that he could not THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 107 consent to the establishment of this branch, because ' the bishop would count for nothingjin it.' The Arch- bishop replied that it was not necessary that the bishop should interfere in this establishment. But Bishop Bourget was not to be moved from the position he had taken, though the opinion of the Archbishop diftered from his own. From which it is plain that, according to Bourget, though the Pope hears Christ, and the bishop hears the Pope, he do3S not hear or does not heed the archbishop. The Bishop of Three Rivers thought the objection drawn from the decision given at Rome feeble and of lit- tle account, since he regarded it as certain that neither the Bishop of Montreal nor the Jesuits intended to erect a Roman Catholic university without the authorization of the Holy See. And to prove the strength of his con- victions and of his sincerity, he refused to attempt to ' induce the Government to beg the Jesuits to withdraw their demand.' The experience of twenty years con- vinced him that the University of Laval could not attract to her a majority of the Roman Catholic youth of the Province who desire to obtain an university education. He found that more than three-quarters of those in his own diocese who desired to enter the liberal professions pursued their preparatory studies at Montreal. He as- sumed that, beyond dcabt, the objection made at Rome seven years before had been withdrawn. The question of the charter remains. The cham- pion of the Jesuits is of opinion that the Government must shape its conduct on this question entirely by the desire of the Cardinal Prefet of the Propaganda ; and that, knov/ing his wishes on the subject, it may * without fear grant what Montreal demands.' And he adds : 'Let the members of Parliament choose : on one side are four letters in flagrant contradiction with the facts in the 1- H 'I i ' ■'■ il H III 11 ■ ' I i 1; i- ;?»• ! t 1 i t . ! t ''I! i ^i' 1; I - tl I ^.i HliiMtM.... ; I ' ! \ \. I ! ; i I: |«; f ; ft .1 u,; h io8 7?0M£; M' CANADA. cognizance of their authors, and even with the acts of some of these authors. On the other side are two letters in perfect accord with the facts, at:d entirely conformable to the desires as well as the authorization of the Cardinal Prt'fet of the Propaganda ; to good faith, right, justice, equity, and good sense the choice is not difficult.' This shows, at least, if nothing else, that the New School can proclaim, when it suits its purpose, that the bishops state that which is not And the remarkable fact ^s that, oy this mode of attack, they have at length succeeded in imposing silence on that moderate section of the Church of Rome on 'horn they made war. The Archbishop is told that, i'or the purpose of producing a deception at Rome, he disfigured the tacts, and ,nit a question in a \. ay that was not conformable to the truth. The Jesuits have taken towards the University of Laval the same line of attack with which, two centuries ago, they crushed Port Royal. The greater part of the young men who leave that university they have described as being imbued Avith very advanced Liberal and Gallican ideas, which tliey predict will shortly conduct us all into an unfathomable abyss. In nothing but name, its accusers are never tired of repeating, is this university Roman Catholic. It teaches its students the doctrines tound in law books which Pius IX, has formally co^idemned ; and it is clear that it must continue to do so, because there are no other works that could supply their place. It is made a crime in this university that it does "lot compel the students to get such glimpses of physical xience as mifj^lu be possible by looking thiough the mists of Church dogma.* Not till May 15, 1876, did th-j University of Laval receive canonic erection. By the bull of Pius IX., the Archbishop of Quebec is made Rector, and the University ♦ See La Question de I'Universiti, par I'Abbc Pelictler. THE yESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. 109 obtains a protector at Rome, in the person of the Cardinal Pretet of the Propaganda ex officio. In this recognition of Laval, its enemies see no honour. In the natural order of things, they say, every Catholic university ought to be canonically erected. Laval has always been called a Catholic university ; and ' it is abso- lutely necessary, on account of this title, that Rome should interfere, and with a firm hand so exercise her authority as to give this institution a truly official character.' The latitude which has hitherto been allowed to the teaching of the professors is abnormal, and musi in future be put an end to. Over one thing, the most hostile oi Laval's critics rejoices : ' Rome no longer fears, as she feared twenty years ago, to awaken the susceptibilities of P'"otes- tant England, by giving caiionic erection to a Catholic university in one of her colonies. 't It is impossible to doubt that, at Rome, the sympathy is with the Jesuits ; and if the Order met a check in Quebec, the reason is that it had there scornfully rejected the counsels of prudence. It requires no small fund of perversity to enable any one to see a victory for the Liberal or Gallican element in the canonic erection of Laval University. The accusations which the Jesuits had brought against Laval may have created the impres- sion, at Rome, that the University needed to be kept better in hand. That this will be the effect of the bull of May, 1876, does not admit of a reasonable doubt. The bull places the doctrine taught and the discipline enforced therein under the surveillance of the Episcopate of the Province of Quebec. This covers the ground of faith and morals. In every other respect, the University is to be regulated by the decision of the Congregation of the Pro- paganda, February i, 1876. If what the Jesuits attacked receives f''om the Pope the balm of an ample measure of + AbOe Pelletier, in the Franc-Parleur, Sept. 8, 1876. n :i ( I 'i' iHii II i XIO ROME IN CANADA. consolation ai > praise, wc must not mistake the moaning of the fact. In practically taking the direction of the University, Rome could have no object in proclaiming that the past had not been satisfactory and that any great change was going to be made in future. Neverthe- less the arrows of the Jesuits may not have missed their mark. Pius IX. extols the sagacity of the professors, several of whom studied in the Gregorian University of the Jesuits at Rome, and in the classes of St. Apollinaire; but he admits that Rome expects from Laval greater benefits in the future than she has derived in the past. Any desire to derogate from the royal charter, granted by the Crown of England, is judiciously disclaimed. The declared intention to leave the University to govern itself receives a d'sturbing commentary from the fact that the Episcopate of Quebec and the Congregation of the Propaganda at Rome divide the government between them. Immunity from alteration is claimed for all the provi- sions ol' this bull. If the legislative authority saw cause to reject any of its provisions, it would find in advance that the presumption would • incur the indignation of God and of Peter and the Apostles.' Nothing contained in the bull is to be criticised, com- batted, infringed upon, withdrawn, demurred to, restricted, lessened, or derogated from in any particular; no matter what necessity the civil Government, to which the right of establishing educational corporations belongs, might see for making any change. It is conceivable that the directions of tlie Congregation of the Propaganda might contain something which, on national grounds, it would be desirable to reject, and which might in fact conflict with the royal charter ; and then +ne question would arise whether the civil Government or a Roman Congre- gation should win the mastery. The royal charter gave Ill THE JESUITS AND THE CIVIL POWER. the University full liberty to govern itself; and though Pius IX. professes not to desire to derogate from this privilege, it is impossible not to see that the real control will be in the bislu^psand the Congregation of the Propa- ganda. The power of the former will be directory ; that of the latter will be judicial, and will be exercised as an original jurisdiction. When certain general edicts of previous Popes, wiiich are not enumerated, are made to apply to this University with the same force as if they had been cited in the bull at length, ' anything else to the contrary notwitlistanding,' the suspicion naturally suggests itself whether this may not be intended to be a fatal arrow shot at the royal charter. In other cases, we have to deal with the con- flict of laws and jurisdictions ; here we flatter ourselves tliat the civil law mubt prevail. Is it possible this may prove a delusion ? Twenty years before this bull was issued, M. Louis Jacques Casault, the first Rector of the University ot Li w 124 ROME IN CANADA. When the Bishop-elect arrived in London, with letters of recommendation from the Governor-General, he foimd that a difficulty had been put in his way by a letter which Abbe Lacorne had sent from Quebec, and in which he undertook to show the inutility of a bishop in Canada. At first, the Government refused to accept M. Briand; and it was only after repeated solicitations on his part that he obtained the necessary recognition.* In a memorial which he presented to the Court ol Lon- don, Abb('i Lacorne had represented that the way to at- tach Canadians to the Government was to make them Protestants. This was not to be done by force, but by leaving them without priests. Though tlie law officers had twice given the opinion that the penal laws did not extend to Canada, there were difficulties in the way of permitting the consecration of a Roman Catholic bishop. Indirectly the Government gave M. Briand to understand that if he received his bulls, they would allow the cir- cumstance to be passed over without notice. M. Briand therefore went to France, where he received his bulls, March 16, 17C6, and was consecrated by the Bishop of Blois.* The new bishop now set out for his diocese, to give a practical contradiction of Lord North's assurance, which was only two years old, ' that no bishop would be there under Papal authority,' because 'Great Britain would not permit any Papal authority in the country.' An attempt to compel the priests to take the oath of allegiance which had been made almost im'nediately alter the conquest, under a threat of deportation, had failed. Under the French regime the Canadian bishops, as we have seen, had been required to take an oath of fidelity to the Crown. Though this requirement must be ♦ M. Faillon. Vie de Mme. De Youville. + Abbi- Ferland, Histoire du Canada. THE ANGLO-GALLIC AN THEORY. "5 more necessary where the bishop is ot foreign birth, the vahic of tlie oath would be greatly Icsscncil by the pre- vious obligation which he must havecome under, to help, defend, and keep the Papal authority and the royalties of St. Peter against all men, sovereigns and subjects; to endeavour to preserve, defend, increase, and advance the rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the Holy Roman Church, of their lord the Pope and his succes- sors; to observe and cause others to observe the apostolic decrees, ordinances, reservations, provisions, and man- dates.;}: This formula, which was formerly, and probably still is, used by the Irish bishops, differed in some res- pects from that used by the Italian bishops at the epoch of the Council of Trent. § The latter could not take part in any deliberation which might be construed to be con- trary to the authority of the Pope. The bishop who has taken such an oath to the Pope as either of these, can- not afterwards take an oath of fidelity to another sove- reign without equivocation or mental reservation. The election of bishops by the chapter was a form of proceeding not destined to be continued. The practice came to be that the bishop, with the consent of the repre- sentative of the sovereign in the Province, named the coadjutor with the right of succession, and the Court of Rome issued the necessary bulls. In these days, the Court of Rome made no objection to this arrangement, but on the contrary, approved of it, on several occasions. || On tlie i6th March, 1768, Cardinal Castelli, Prtfet of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, wrote to the Bishop : ' It is the wish of the Pope that you should ask a coadjutor, provided the English do not oppose any t Quarterly Review, Vcl. XXXVIII. § Bungener, History of the Council of Trent. II Abb. Ferland. Observations sur un ouvrage intitule Histoirc dii Canada, par M« I'Abbo Brasseurde Bourbourg. Pi! ■4 :!;:rfi^ i \ !l I I! «/ 1 126 ROME IN CANADA. obstacle thnrcto ; ' which was the same as sayinj^ that the opposition of tlie Government would be fatal to the proposal. liiit in this, as in many other matters, there were always to be found people more Catholic than the Pope. M. Hriand, says Abbn Brasseur de Bourbuurf^,* when told of the authority claimed for the British Crown in the nomination of bishops, ought to have said that the French kiuf^ has never possessed the rif,dit attributed to him except by the favour of the Holy See, and that it was not a right whicli could be transferred to a non- Catholic sovereign. Two years later, Bishop Briand besought the Papal Nuncio at Paris to ask M. D'Esgly forcoadjutcn" ; at the same time informing him that the choice had been agreed to by the Government. The presentation thus mad was accepted by the Court of Rome, and the Cardinal after- wards thanked the Bishop for having so managed the matter that the appointment had been made without any encroachment upon the rights and authority of the Apos- tolic See. The elections of the bishops by the chapter would pro- bably have been the best solution of a question which presented many difBculties. There are conceivable cases in which the right of the Crown to concur in, or to veto, the ci.oice, miglit almost be a political necessity. The unchecked nomination of bishops by the Crown, judged by its fruits where it has been tried, was far from being an unmixed good. The selections wore often made from motives to which religion is a stranger. Political -services, and at some periods and in some countries services of a shameless character, were rewarded by the bestowal of a bishopric ; and the vicious qualities which had won the incongruous reward continued in active vigour, to the scandal of the Church and religion. The richer the ♦ Histoiie du Canada, de son eglise, et de ses missions. i^l! ;. j THE ANGLOGALLICAS THEORY. "7 benrficc, the greater the means of iiuhilf^iii^' in a dissohitc voUiptunusness, the greater the scandal. While the bishfip wallowed in wealth, of which he made so ill an nse, the simple clerk was a mendicant. The dauf,'hter, says the proverb, snfTocatcd the mother; the piety of the Church load( 1 her with riches, and the riches smothered the piety. But this state of things difl not exist in Canada. The appointment of cun'-s by tlic Government was fre- quently resisted by the bishops; though the Royal Instruc- tions formerly required that no Roman Catholic eccle- siastic should exercise his functions without a license from the Government. M. liriand, who had submitted to the conditions imposed on the occasion of his own appointment, said to the Governor : ' I would rather sub- mit to the loss of my head, than accord you the permission ot nominating to a single cure.' The instructions of the Governors, whether tliey were strictly carried out or not, at least show the aim of the Imperial Government, and what it considered to be its duty. These instructions contained things which it is impossible now to approve ; and others which, though they had a harsh look, may not have been wholly unne- cessary. The instructions of Governor Murray forbade the exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome in the colony. Those of Sir George Prevost, dated 1775, may be taken as the affirmation of a policy which was not formally abandoned for more than half a century. They show what were he relations which it was the avowed policy of England to establish towards the Roman Catholic Church ; aid they are therefore worth examining somewhat in detail. Though the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion had been guarded by the stipulations contained in the ! ( *! t iiff if'w' l-i. . if:"''' r ■ 11 It 1 M II m \ l^ 128 ROME IN CANADA. capitulati(jn of Montreal a^nd the Treaty of Cession, the instrnctions explained, ' that it is a toleration of tlie free exercise of tlie religion of the Church of Rome to which they are entitled, but not to the powers and privileges of it as an Established Church, that being a preference which only belongs to the Protestant Church of England.' The supremacy of the Crown in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil, was asserted. Appeals to a correspondence with any foreign ecclesiastical jurisd'ction, of what nature or kind soever, were absolutely forbidden under severe penalties. No episcopal or vicarial power was to be exercised in the Province ' by any person professing the religion of the Church of Rome, but only such as are indispensably and indisputably necessary to the free exer- cise of the Romish religion ; ' and even this was not to be exercised witliout permissi'-n from the Governor under the great seal. No person was to have holy orders con- ferred upon him, or to have the care of souls, without a license from the Governor. No person professing the religion of the Church of Rome was to be allowed to fill any ecclesiastical benefice, or to enjoy any of the rights or profits belonging thereto, who was not a Canadian by birtli ; such only excepted as already filled benciices or might be appointed thereto by the authority ol the Crown ; and all riglit, or claim of riglit, in any other person than the sovereign or his representative, to appoint to any benefice was absolutely prohibited, the rights of lay patrons being reserved. No Roman Catholic was to be appointed incumbent of any parish in which tlie majority of the inhabitants might solicit tlie appointment of a Protestant; and in that case the incumbent was to be a Protestant minister, and the Roman Catholics might have the use of tlie church at such time as would not interfere with the worsliij) of the Protestants ; in exchange for which privilege, the Pro- i,!h \'A THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. 129 testant inhabitants of any parish where the majority of parishioners were Roman Catholics^ were to have the free use of the chnrch at such time as might not interfere with the worship of the Roman Catholics. For sometime the clergymen oi tlie Church of England, in the conquered colony, were appointed i)y the Crown. And these instructions contain a claim on the part (jf the Crown to appoint Roman Catholic priests ; lor they for- bade anyone else besides the sovereign or liis representa- tive to claim a right to appoint incumbents. Where the majority oi the parishioners were Protestants, even the Crown had not the power to appoint a Roman Catholic incumbent, but the tolerated Roman Catholic minority was to have the use of the public churches at convenient times ; and the Roman Catholic churches were to be so far trccted as public property that the Crown could authorize Protestants to use them at times not inconven- ient to t leir owners. Anglican control of the Church, in its different branches, was intended to go beyond the utmost extent of Gallican pretensions. But, in practice, it soon fell far short not only of the claims made in these instructions, but of the rules which the Government had enforced under the French dominion. Every Roman Catholic ecclesiastic in possession of a benefice was required to take an oath of fidelity to the sovereign ;t an oath which was substituted for that of supremacy and allegiance. All incumi:>ents of parishes professing the religion of Rome, and not being under the * The oath was in these terms: ' I, A. D., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allcf^ianLC to His Mnjesty Kini; Cieorj^e, and will de- fend him to the utmost of my power against all traiturous conspiracies, and attempts whatsoever, which shall be mr.de against his person, crown, and dignity, and that I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to His Majesty, liis heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracici, and attempt which I shall know to be against him, or any of them ; and all this dn I swear wilhoi any equivo- cation, mental evasion, or secret reservation, and renouncing all pardons and (lispcn- sations from any power or persons whonisoever to the contrarj-, so help me Goa.' 14 Geo. Ill, Cap 83. >) U ' ^ m ¥ ~-i i', i I i 1 i i I il 1 ■ 130 ROME IN CANADA. :l: , 1 1'i "•■ ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bifehop of Quebec, were to hold their benefices during good behaviour, but any conviction for crime, or proof of seditious attempts to disturb the peace, was to vacate the benefice. Any such ecclesiastic who might marry was to be released from the penalties which such a step might subject him to by the authority of the See of Rome. It is a curious fact, in view of the Guibord case, that freedom of the burial of the dead in churches and church-yards was to be allowed indiscri- mmateiy to every religious persuasion. The Royal I'^aniily was to be prayed for in all churches and places of public worship,* and the royal arms were to be put up therein. The guarantee that the priests who were not under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Quebec should hold their benefices during good behaviour, would, if en- forced, have contributed to their independence and weak- ened the episcopal authority. The restriction of this rule to such priests as were not under the Bishop of Quebec must have gone fa" to nullify it altogether, for it is difficult to understand who were the priests who were not under his jurisdiction previous to the creation of the bisiiopric of Montreal. The Government went very far when it undertook to stand between the wrath of Rome and any priest who should renounce his obligations of celibacy and enter into the marriage state. Few changes made by the Reformation gave such offence to Roman Catholics as the marriage of the clergy ; and now the offer was made to Canadian priests, that if they chose to marry, the British Government would shield them from the ecclesiastical penalties which they might incur for doing so. It is difficult to see how this could be done ; and I have seen no evidence tliat the Government was ever called upon to carry this guarantee into effect. * This practice was till recently kept up in the diucese of Montreal, by onltr of the Bishop, but it had become entirely voluntary ; and 1 am not aware of its having been discontinued. u THE ANGLO-GALLIC AN THEORY. 131 There were also instructions regarding the receipt of tithes by Protestant and Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. Acting on the recommendation of Governor vSimcoe, the British Government formed the design of supporting the Church of England in Canada by means of tithes; but it was soon discovered that tlie levying of tithes could not be made acceptable to an English colony in America, and the attempt had to be abandoned. The Church of Rome, which it was intended only to tolerate, while the Church of England should be established, retains its tithes, though those of the Church of England were aban- doned before the end of the last century. Tlu^ same fate has not befallen the landed endowments of the two Churches : the spirit of the age caused th.e seen arization of the clergy reserves, set apart for the maintenance of a Protestant clergy ; while the Church of Rome, with the exception of the Jesuits' estates, and a few other small parcels which fell into the possession of the Crown, re- tains its extensive territorial possessions. The more stringent clauses of the Governor's instruc- tions gradually came to be disregarded ; and though spas- modic attempts were from time to time made b}' the British Government, or its representative in the colony, to recover the leeway which had been made, they had very little practical result, and the Cliurch of P' me was en- abled ni time to shake itself free from that supremacy to which it liad been intended to subject it. Forty years after the conquest the Duke of Portland sent ouL instruc- tions to the Local Government to resume the authority in virtue of which no one was to have holy orders conferred upon him, or be entrusted with the care of souls, with- out a license from the Governor. No means by which this object could be attained were to be left untried. If the Roman Catholic bishop could be brouglit to a \ielding temper by an addition to Ins worldly comforts, the British m !?t( 132 ROME IN CANADA. Government was willing to increase his allowance 'almost to any extent.' The Roman Catholic clerg)^ had, at this time, become accountable to their bishop alone, and that clergy, to augment its own influence, discouraged the education of the people.*'- To prevent the Bishop becoming more powerlul than the Government, the Duke of Port- land was willing to resume an authority which had already fallen into disuse, and to bring him to terms by ai addi- tion to his income. Four years later an interview took place, at the sugges- tion of the Governor, between the Rev. M. Plessis, coad- jutor, and Attorney-General Sewell, in which a desire of coming to an accommodation was admitted on the part of the Government. Mr. Sewell said he had authority from the Governor to state his private opinion on the subject. ' It is highly necessary for you,' he said to ^I. Plessis, * to have the means of protecting your Church ; to the Government to have a good understanding with the minis- ters of a religion which it has acknowledged and estab- lished by the Quebec Act, and at the same time essential to have them under its control. The Governor haA'i'jg permitted the free exercise of the Roman Catholic reli- gion, ouglit, he thought, to avow its officers, but not at the expense of the king's rights or of the Established Church ; you cannot expect,' M. Sewell told the bishop, 'nor ever obtain, anything that is inconsistent with the rights of the Crown ; nor can the Government ever allow to you what it denies to the Ciiurch of England.' But in this he was mistaken. M. Plessis admitted that this position might be correct, and he saw no objection to the bishop acting under the king's commission. The Attorney-General claimed that submission to t}- e king's authority, on all mixed as well a-^ .emporal questions, was essential. The Crown would * Sir R. S. Milnes to the Duke of Portland, Quebec, i8 Feb., iSoi. iiF!1 THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. 133 S 1 1 never consent to give up its power; the bishop's right to appoint cures could not be admitted, for it was one which the Church of England did not possess. Under tlie ist of Ehzabeth, which the Quebec Act had extended to Canada— but happily no persecutions followed in its train— the bishop was without power. But, objected ]\I. Plessis, the claim was practically that the king should collate to every benefice, whereas the King of France had collated only to consistorial offices, not to cures. This statement was too wide to express the truth, for there were many cures to which the French king was collator. But then, pursued M. Plessis, the bishop ought nut to be obliged to give a reason for refusing to induct the priests so presented. On this point the Attorney-General and the bishop did not agree, any more than on that of the remova- bility of the cures; Mr. Sewcll contending tliat a rector was removable only for misconduct. He was willing to allow ' that the Government ought, in j^olicy, to give the bishop a jurisdiction over his clergy ; subject always to the controlhng power of the King's Bench, and to the operation of the writ of prohibition and an appeal, to which the Courts of the Bishops in England are subject." And now the Attorney-General reached the seductive part of his argument: 'The Government,' he :iaid, ' ac knowledging your religion, and avowing its officers to b officers of the Crown, should provide for them as for others. The bishop should have enough to enable hiai to live in a splendour suitable to his rank ; and the co:. J- jutor also in proportion.' To do him justice, M. Plessis had performed his share in leading up to this prcjposc , by remarking that Bishop Denaud was living in a state of ' poverty, holding a living, and acting as parish priest, in direct contradiction to the canons.' The offer to raise the bishop from this condition to one of splendour, and ihl , II- irii ml III bt S 111 |( J ' 134 ROME IN CANADA. the coadjutor to a condition of relative splendour, caused the latter to remark, that though he did not wish to see the bishop living in splendour, he desired to see him ireed from the pressure of want. The Attorney-General hav- ing explained that he only meant that the bishop's income should be that of a gentleman, M. Plessis acknowledged that they b^th meant the same thing. But tliere were difficulties in the way ; if the relinquish- ment ol the bishop's right tc nominate to the cures, were coincident with the receipt o. a pension, a scandal-loving public would not hesitate to say that he had sold the Church. As for public clamour, the Attorney-General saw that that could not be stopped ; and as for relinquish- ing a right, there was none to relinquish. ' Surely this is a sufficient answer to any vulgar declamation agaii.st a bishop who makes terms highly advantageous for his church, and must be satisfactory to himself.' On so deli- cate a point, M. Plessis could not presume to speak for his ecclesiastical superior. Hesitatingly he said, ' I do not know ; it is his affair.' There was no time to be lost ; the opportunity might never occur again. ' There is one idea,' said the Attorney- General impressively, and with a slight flavour of menace, ' which I wish to suggest ; that if you ever mean to fix the officers of your Church upon any footing, this is the moment. The piesent Lieutenant-Governor is a gentleman of most liberal principles ; he has been long enough in the country to know all that relates to it, and is well die- posed to serve you ; he is on the point ol going to Eng- land, where this matter must be settled.' On this point the interlocutors fell into complete accord : ' I am we!! av/are of all this;' M. Plessis agreed, ' whatever is to be done must be done now.' At eight o'clock in the morning the Attorney-General would expect M. Plessis to breakfast. * You may,' frankly replied M. Plessis, * something must be done.' THE ANGLO-GALLIC AN THEORY. 135 A. little more than three months alter this remarkable interview, M. Denaud petitioned the kinj-f to cause him to be civilly recognized as Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec, with 'such prerogatives, rights, and temporal emoluments as your majesty may be graciously pleased to attach to this dignity.' The petitioner stated that neither he Avho had been at the head of the Church in Lower Canada lor eight years, nor his predecessors sirxe the conquest, nor the euros of the parishes, had received from the king the special authorization of which they often lelt the want, to prevent doubts on questions which might come up lor adjudication in the courts touching the ex- ercise of their civil functions. The bishops had however, he said, always taken the oath of allegiance andexercised their functions, with the permission of the sovereign, imder different governors. But the day was coraing '..ht". no more sucJi oaths would betaken. Mr. Ryland, in a letter to the Earl of Spencer, May 10, 1813, speaks of Denaiid having offered to the Crown the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps, he concluded, or may have known it to be a fact, that Denaud was willing, in consideration of having his i>fficial position recognized by the Government and riri annual salary paid out oftJie Imperial Treasury, to surrender the patronage of the cures. If this be so, tlie interview be- tween Coadjutor Plcssis and Attorney-General St well, followed by the eight o'clock breakfast, liad not been in vain. But Denaud died before any arrangement was com- pleted. When ]\I. Plessis passes through the cluys .lis state of coadjutor and becomes bishop, we shall see him take the shilling,* Nine months after this con^•ersation, Bishop Denaud died ; and I\Ir. Ryland ran to the Attorney-Gen- l-i * This interview, reported by Attorney-General Sewell liimself, i, given at length in Christie's History of dinada. twmmmi^''^ 11 I ; *! 136 ROME IN CANADA. eral, .'ind wn>lc to the Anglican Bishop of Quebec, and brought that functionary's powers of persuasion to bear on Mr. Prcsulont Dunn, 'to dissuade him from a formal acknowledgment of M. Plessis, as Superintendent of the Romish Church, till His Majesty's pleasure respecting that situation shall be declared.' But the President had decided that on tlie morrow, Jan. 27, 1806, M. Plessis should be admitted to take the oaths in Council. The negotiations ol the previous year had not yet matured in- to an agreement ; and Mr. President Dunn excited much criticism by his resolution formally to acknowledge M. Pl ssis as Bishop ot Quebec. Mr. Ryland thought it would greatl) tend to promote the views of the Govern- ment if an assistant superintendent were sent out from England, and a Fi h emigrant bishop of approved loy- alty could be found, who would accept on the terms ofiered by the Government. But President Dunn went farther. Without awaiting for instructions from home, he allowed M. Panet to take the oath as coadjutor. The Anglican Bishop of Quebec was i^notly scandalized; he had in his possession an affidavit, in w'nich the brother of the new coadjutor was said to have declared at the door of the church of Charlebourg, that if he could get M. Berthelot elected to the Legislative As- sembly, ' they would trample the English under their feet' [^ils fouleraientles Anglais sons les pieds''). Who could tell what might not be done when the whole patronage ol the Romish Churcii in the Province would be wielded by the brother of one who uttered this contingent threat ? A few months later. Sir James Craig was Governor of Lower Canada. Mr. Ryland, who had tried so hard, and without effect, to impress his views on President Dunn, had greater success with th( new Governor. The ques- tion which they conjointly undertook to resolve was, in af. THE ANGLU-GALLICAX THEORY. 137 Avhat way tlie Crown could most successfully assume the patronage of the Roman C.iiholic Church. Having hit upon a plan, Mr. Rylanil, who had gone t(j England, un- folded it in a letter to Peel, then under Secretary of State. The plan was that the Governor should receive instruc- tions from England to inform M. Plessis, that His Majes- ty was disposed to accede to the petition of the late Rev. M. Denaud, by granting the Roman Catholic bishop recog- nition in the King's Courts, and letters patent appointing him Superintendent of the Roman Catholic Church of Lower Canada, with a salary suitable to the dignity and importance of the office ; and that letters of induction or confirmation would h<(> granted by His Majesty to the cures, in the same manner v-\\ they were issued m favour of the clergy of the Established Church, without which they had no lega^ titk to the privileges and emoluments of their respective cures. Meanwhile, the new bishop issued a mandoment which the GovcnK>rsemai Catliolic benefices as was exercised hj' the bisliop under the French Government, is nriw \ested in His Majesty. It the ri},dU lie supposed to have originatetlnvith the Pope, the same consefjuence would result from the extinction of tlie I'apal authority in a British Pro\ lUce. l>ut the notion that the Papal authority was extinj^'uished in Can- ada was ah^cady a delusion. Tlie Governor was impressed by the suspicion tliat the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland, with whom thecorres- pondencewasbeingcarriedon, would instigate Plessisto re- fuse to acknowledge the king's supremacy. ' The priests,' Craig wrote in a letter to Ryland, ' certainly do their en- deavours to estrange the people more and mori; Irom .is.' Thus it v.a.s always more or less a question of allegiance. The writers wht) contend that while the four articles were not registered by the Superior Council of Quebec, neither were Gallican doctrines introduced into the countr}',- overstate the fact. It may be true, as .M, Garneau remarks, that the contentions which arose in France regarding tlie franchises of the Gallican Church had less interest for the scattered populatioii on the banks of the 5't. Lawrence; but he admits that M. dc Viller- maulo, ]\I.Thibaut, and T\I. Glandelet, dean ofthecliapter of Quebec, accepted the doctrines of the author of the Lcttrcs Pi'oviuc'inlcs, ]\I. Oscar Dunn is correct in saying that, after the conquest, the French Canadians naturally gravitated more than ever towards Rome, as they had no longer any motive for making common cause with the secular power to form a national Church. Having to deal with a Protestant power, they only gave it half their con- fidence ; and ' to-day/ this writer boasts, ' we are per- haps of all peoples that which is in the strictest commun- ion with Rome; there is not to be found the least restric- * Oscar Dunn. Introduction de I'interement civil en Canada. THE ANGLO-GALLIC AN THEORY. 139 tion nor the least ambiguity in tlic acts of faith atul sol- emn submission of our Provincial Councils.' In (Uir day, the fullest liberty has been granted to the Roman Catho- lics, with no grudging sjiirit ; and now the time has come when that Church claims supremacy over the State, and, theoretically at least, denies the right of any otherChurch even to toleration. So tar from the Pajial authority being extinguished in Canada, it claims the first pla e, and in- sists on the subordination of the State. The civil courts, under the French dominion, constant- ly restrained the abuse of ecclesiastical authority. Simi- lar restraints can still be enforced ; tiiough the Church of Rome in Quebec has never, at any time, n .ide the sane efforts to break loose from them that she is making to-day. Abbt' Ferland has printed a conversation between Bishoj) Plessis and Governor Craig, which tlic former committed to paper immediately after it had taken jilace. He hatl not hesitated, in 1812, to ask the Government to authorize him officially to assume the title of I'ishop of Quebec. In respect to the appointment to cures, he had, even when secretary to Bishop Hidiert, combatted the claim of the Crown. Falling under the suspicion of the Government, he was looked on as a man whom it would be pruJent to keep at arm's length. Prince Edward wrote from Halifax to General Prescott, Oct. 16, 1797: 'As to the coadjutor, ]\I. Plessis, I think it my duty to inform you that he is not a man in whom it would be prudent to repose too great a degree of confidence. I have known him since lie was secretary to Bishop Hubert ; and it was perfectly well knoAvn, during my residence in Canada, that he controlled both the bishop and the vScminary, and induceil them to adopt opinions wliich were incompatible with those we maintained regarding the supremacy ol the king in ecclesiastical affairs.' ,.^... IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A ^«.*V 1.0 l^|28 |2.5 ■50 *^™ hhii ^" BIO I.I IE L25 1 J:1|L6 V] vl v: y /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 1 ^ f ¥ ^ J. 140 ROME IN CANADA. Bishop Dcnaut had consented to send to the Governor a list of nominations to cures, and the fact being reported to Prince Edward, the latter in another letter stated that, during his residence in Canada, M. Plessis had always influenced tlie bishop to refuse to submit to such nomi- nations. ' M. Plessis,' the Prince adds, 'could not be considered otherwise than as occupying a doubtfu' posi- tion regarding his loyalty towards Great Britain.' In the interview with Craig, the bishop took the ground that, as lather of the family, it was for him to send workmen into the field. The Governor replied that if the bishop denied the royal prerogative on this point, he must refuse to discuss the matter further with him ; adding that the bishop's refusal of institution would not prevent the priests appointed in the name of the king from being maintained in their positions. The bishop contended that they would be unable to fulfil their spiritual func- tions. The Governor made a remark which shows that, in several respects, the royal instructions had been departed from ; and he said he was liable to be called to account and put upon his trial for neglect of duty in this particular. Another remark seems to show that none of the priests then filling charges had been appointed by the Government ; otherwise it is difficult to see why not one of them could have maintained an action for the recovery of tithes, unless it were that they did not hold their cures by a title which made them irremovea- ble except for crime. And now the bishop threw out sly menace : the Government, he said, had, since the conquest, left his predecessors at full liberty to rule the Church, and they had therein found a motive to be zealous for the interest of the Government ; the inference being that a different policy would have a contrary effect. The dispute waxed warm, and things calculated to irritate were said on both sides. The Governor reminded ■ » 1 ■ ; THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. 141 the bishop that under the capitulation of Montreal he had a right to no more than a toleration of his religion. The bishop professed himself the most devoted of His Majesty's subjects ; but in matters of spiritual sujiremacy every Catholic must bow to the chief of the Church, not to the Parliament of England. When the conversation ended, the bishop and the Governor were as far apart ^s they had been at the beginning.* No claim was yet made that the bishops could exercise anything but a spiritual authority over their dioceses. Sir George Prevost, who succeeded Craig in the Governor- ship, asked the bishop on what footing it would be con- venient to put the Roman Catholic bishops in future. The reply was that their spiritual power ought to come from the Sovereign Pontiff; but he did not plead that they should be authoiized to enter upon their sees without the consent of the Government; on the contrary, he admitted that, as the spiritui; 1 functions have certain exterior and civil effects, it was reasonable that bishops should, for that purpose, be required to obtain the consent of the Government. The new Governor took the same ground as his prede- cessor. But, on the breaking out of the American war, the cures exerted themselves in raising the militia ; and the bishop, exercising the power which circular letters and mandements gave him, prudence suggested that he was too important an ally of the Government to allow the contest begun by Craig to be continued. ' I have to inform you,' wrote Lord Bathurst, 'that His Royal High- ness, the Prince Regent, in the name of His Majesty, desires that hereafter the allowance of the Catholic Bishop of Quebec be one thousand pounds per annum, as a testimony rendered to the loyalty and good conduct of the gentleman who now occupies that place as well as *Ferland. Obs. 142 ROME IN CANADA. of the otlier members of the Catholic clergy of the Province.' Every embarrassment into which the British Govern- ment fell was felt to be the opportunity of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. In turning the war of 181 2 to account, Bishop Plessis was only following in the footsteps of a predecessor, who had extracted advantages from the French revolution. The British Government had strenuously insisted on a practical adherence to that part of the royal instructions wliich forbade foreign ecclesiastics to exercise their functions in Canada. The bishops })ressed for a relaxation of this rule, the more vigorously because, after the suppression of the Jesuits and the Recollets, it was very difficult to obtain an adequate supply of priests. Forthirty j-ears tlieir efforts failed of success. TheFrench revolution produced between the French priests and the Britisli Government a common feeling: botli found tliem- selves in opposition to the new order of things. More than thirty of tlic priests who left France readily got passports from the British Government to go to Canada; and there was tliereafter no attempt to revive a prohi- bition that liad once, for special reasons, been removed.* Almost immediately after the title of Bisliop Plessis had been recognized and he had obtained an allowance of one thousand pounds a year, the Colonial Secretary replied to a complaint of the Anglican bishop regarding the anomalous recognition of two titulars in the same diocese, that * whatever opinions may be entertained with respect to the adoption of measures for restraining the Catholic Church in the Province or reducing its lately acquired superiority,' the present was no time for bringing forward changes. t Tlie objection that the demand of the Anglican bishop ♦ Tanguay, Kt'p.-Gcn. t Ferland. Vie dc Mgr. Plessis. THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. 143 was inopportune was founded on the existence of the American war. On the arrival of General Craig as Governor, it had been doubtful whether the Roman Catholic bishop would be allowed any higher title than that of Ecclesiastical Superintendent for the affairs of the Church of Rome in Lower Canada. The breaking out of the war solved the difficulty, to the advantage of the Church ; and to the full recognition of the title was now added a gratuity of a thousand pounds a year to Bishop Plessis. Lord John Russell was afterwards, as Colonial Secretary, to send to Canada a dispatch order- ing the qualifying word 'lord' to be put before that of bishop. By this act, the veteran statesman earned a doubtful title to figure before the world as the author of the Durham letter. Of the instructions so long given to Canadian Governors some clauses were reasonable and necessary, while others seem to trench, in some degree, 011 the free exercise of the religion of Rome which had been protected by inter- national guarantees. But the spirit of the times when the penal laws of Elizabeth were in full force in England is not to be judged by the standards of to-day. It is greatly to be wished that the mad policy of the Ultra- montanes of Quebec may not be carried to an extent which may render necessary the revival of some of the guarantees which gradually fell out of use. The Church of England has been disestablished, and if there be an established Church in the country, it is the Church of Rome. The declaration in the preamble of the Act secularizing the clergy reserves, that all connection between Church and State ought to be abolished, is one the assertion of which would now bring down anathema on the head of any member of the Church of Rome in Quebec. The extent of the pressure which the bishops may be 1 ■» • in. ;MI if; Ui : I'M ■ 1 1 * il j '( ! i t ( ■i ll 1 ;; (1; \ r.Vr Vi 144 ROME IN CANADA. able to put on the inferior clergy must depend, in a great measure, upon whether the latter be fixed in their cures for life, or removable at the pleasure of their ecclesiastical superiors. Whether they are legally removable is a ques- tion wliicli hns been much contested. Sir L. H. Lafon- tainc, as an advocate, argued with great force in favour of immovability ;* and the fact of his afterwards publishing his plaidoyer seems to prove that he felt a personal inter- est in propagating that view : as a judge, he is said not to have adhered to that opinion. The decision, in the case of Nau against Bishop Lartigue, went off on a side issue, and determines nothing for or against the immovability of the cures who are ap- pointed otherwise than by simple letters of mission. An arn'it of 1679 confines the right to receive tithes and other ot)lations entirely to cures appointed for life ; but those who wish to augment the power of the bishops, argue that a law which has been disregarded for nearly two centuries has become a dead letter. Bishop Lar- tigue, in a memorial published anonymously, laid down certain rules, the observance of which was necessary to cover the cure with the protection of immovability. t Previous to presentation to a benefice the priest must undergo an examination before the bishop. Two months after the appointment he must, in accordance with the Council of Trent — which, by the way, in a matter of dis- cipline, such as this is, was never accepted in Canada during the French dominion — and the civil ordinances, make the profession of faith of Pius IV. The bishop must state, in the instrument of appointment, in what quality he has the power to appoint ; in the case of suc- cession to an immovable cure in what way the vacancy occurred : whether by death, resignation, or otherwise. ♦ Notes sur rinamovibilite des curts dans le Bas-Canada, 1837. t Memoire sur I'amovibilite des cures en Canada, 1837. iiiii.y » . THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. M5 ii; The secretary of the diocese, or, in his absence, two other witnesses, must attest the execution of the instrument. All these formalities. Bishop Lirtigue contended, were necessary to be observed to make a priest irremovable under the law. The bishop, by neglecting these observ- ances, and making the appointment by a simple letter^ could evade the law. That is the argument of Bishop Lartigue, and his practice in the contested case was in accord with it. The usual mode of appointing cun-s came in time to be by a letter in which the bishop states that the appointment is revocable at his pleasure or that ot his successor.* It was reserved for the English domin- ion to witness the complete success of the attempt of the bishops to overthrow the salutary principle of the irre- movability of the cures. But if, by resort to the artifice of evasion for a long period of time, the law can be made a dead letter, what becomes of the provision that tithes are to be paid only to cures having a life tenure of their bene- fices ? The Gallicans had a maxim that there was no prescription against the public good ; but Gallicanism is now more than ever rebellion against Rome. If the cure Nau had lived in the year of grace 1877, he could not have appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench without incurring ecclesiastical censure. The Bishops of Quebec, Nov. 14, 1875, in ajoint circular assume to take away the right which M. Nau was at full liberty to exer- cise, and did exercise, in 1838. The bishops go back to a Council where they find it defined, that if a clerk or reli- gious person cites another clerk or religious person before a civil court, he incurs the censures pro- nounced by the ecclesiastical law ; not the ancient ec- clesiastical law of France, but the ecclesiastical law of Rome. They find that the Propaganda has denounced ♦ Droit administratif ou Manuel des Paroisses et Fabriques. Par Hector L. Laugevin, avocat. r illii I '. ;■ ' iri ■I 1 ! ( ) i I4G HOME IN CANADA. tlie saino penalties for the same (jffcnce. The bishops then .'I'M: 'strictly ecclesiastical causes are tlujse in wiiich the defendant is an ecclesiastic or a religious per- son, or tlie object in litigation is a spiritual thing, or con- nected with the exercise (jf some functiuncil, in a recent case, seemed to imply that if an ecclesiastical encrc^achment be nc^t resist- ed, it may ccmie in time to have the force of law. In the light of these facts, we may form some estimate of tlu; influence that may l;e wielded i)y eight bishojjs in the Province of Quebec, acting upon (orders from Rome, and transmitting tliem to one thousand aiifl forty-two priests, three hundred and fifty ecclesiastics, and (Mie hun- dred and fifty-one convents.* The number (jfj)riests had increased in one year f(;rty-three, of ecclesiastics ten, of convents seven. When Mgr. Plessis (1821), Bishop of Quebec, conse- crated M. Lartigue Bishop of Telinesse, in pdrtihus in- fulcliiim, and informed the clergy and their flocks in the district of Mtmtreal that they must iiencef(jrth apply to the new bishoj) for dispensations, ordinations, etc., some of the Gallican clergy of that district contended that, thougli there might be bulls of the Pope which had not been published conferring the benefice, the appointment woidd not be valid without the consent of the King of England, wIk), by the Treaty of Cession, had succeeded to the riglUs of the King of France with regard to the erection of bishoprics.! M. Chaboillez argued that it was the interest of Catholics that nothing should be done in the way of innovation to diminish the favourable disposi- • Rolland et fils. AUnanach Agricole Commercial et Historique, Montreal, 1877. t M. Chaboilicz, Cur4 of Lonnueuil. Questions sur le Government Eccitaiastiques (lu District de Montreal. THE ANGLO-GALLICAN THEORY. «47 tion of the Government towards tho Catholic rcHgion ; and that no step could be more calcidated to excite the jealousy of the Government than to pretend to erect a bishopric in a country belonging to England without the consent of the sovereign. Unless the new bisliop were recognized by the civil power, his authority, and even his quality, might be contested in the tribunals. Another reason why the cf»nsent of the king should be obtained was, that such an establishment was comprised in the edict of mortmain. It was an ecclesiastical (.-stablish- ment : an arrondissemenl was tormed, to which it was pro- posed to appoint a superior, assign him a territory, and give him subjects to govern. On his part there must be rights, and on that of his inferiors obligations, in civil as well as in spiritual concerns. The edict of 1743 showed that such an ctablishment, call it a bishopric or an epis- copal district, could not, any more than the College ot Nicolet, have a legal existence unless it were autlu^rized by letters patent of the king. French canonists had in- sisted on the necessity of a bishop being commissioned by the king as well as the Pope. M. Chaboillez pfjinted to an early Council, held at Paris, which had pron(Junced null the erection of a bishopric without the consent of the clergy and the people, who were interested in it. Three lawyers, Jos. licdard, B. Beaubicn, and M. O. Sullivan, staked their professional rei)utation on the statement that the position taken by thccumofLongueuil was entirely conformable to the civil and canon law of Lower Canada. M. P. H. Bt'clard denied tliat these gentlemen were well versed in the canon law ; but it did not admit of question that they were constantly called upon to plead causes in which the ecclesiastical law of France might have a partial application. To M. Chaboillez's pamphlet three replies were made; and the controversy may be regarded as one of the early 10 :i I; !,I i i; ( , I i ! I —II. 148 ROME IN CANADA. contests between the Ultramontanes and the Gallicans in Canada. In opposition to M. Chaboillez, it was con- tended that the Pope has the absohite power of erecting bishoprics and appointing bishops. To his contention that the ancient ecclesiastical laws of France were still in force in Canada, his opponents replied that the nomina- tion and institution of Canadian bishops, as well as the mode of receiving the decrees of the Holy See in this country, had become as foreign to the canon laws of France as to those of Poland or Hungary.* The priest who took th'.:s ground boasted that the eccle- siastical power in Canada was gradually changing its posi- tion towards the civil Government; that tht; bishop under whose administration they were living had, by pur- suing a wise and prudent policy, ' obtained more favours from the Government than any one of his predecessors had hern able to get.' He admitted that when a new bishopric was erected in France, the bulls of the Popes continued to state that the act was done with the consent of the clergy and the people; but this, he argued, went for nothing, since the Gallican liberties would deny them registration by Parliament without this piece of harm- less condescension on the part of the Court of Rome. But a lawyer who defended ilic creation of the bishop- ric of ^Montreal by the sole authority of the Pope, j\I. P. H. Bt'dard. did not venture to assume that the case was one in which the consent of the Crown was not necessary. He denied that there was anything to prove that the con- sent of the king had not in fact been obtained ;t and the Bishop of Quebec had stated;}: that he had done nothing except in concert with His Majesty's ministers. M. Be- dard did, however, in general terms, extend the authority ♦ Observations sur un Ecrit intituli' Questions sur le Government EcclOsiastique, du District de Montreal. Par un Pn'tre du Dioci^se de Quibec. + Riponse de Messire Chaboillei:, Curu de Longueuil, a la lettre de P. H. Dedard. X Mandement, 5 Decembre, 1822. 'is wt-. ;(! THE ANGLOOALLICAN THEORY. ^9 of the Papal power nearly as far as the New School now assert the right to carry it. ' We are,' he said, ' united by our obedience to the chief of the Universal Church, to the diocesan bishop, the prelate whom the Sovereign Pon- tiff has specially commissioned to govern us. " Orders," says Saint Augustine, " have come to us from the Apostolic See; the cause is finished.'" This writer, who had a re- putation to make at the bar, did not deny that the eccle- siastical law of France was in force in Canada. There was a suspicion that he had not written the pamphlet himself, and that Bishop Lartigue had had some luind in it. It was a question between the ecclesiastical law of France and the canon law of Rome: that the principles of the former had been applied in Canada is beycjnd doubt. The edict of May, 1679, concerning tithes and the fixity of the cuH'S, says that means were to be taken according to the canonical forms to ascertain the convenience or inconvenience of the proposed regulations. And after all interested had been heard, the facts were to be re- ported to the Bishop of Quebec and the king, 'ui order that suitable regulations may be made conformably to the laws and the usages of the Church of the kingdom.' The judgments of the Superior Council were conformable to this requirement. An arret of July i, 1695, ordered the Vicar-General and Sieur Dudougt at once to remit to the Council the titles of their pretended ecclesi- astical jurisdiction; an arret of June 30, 1693, accorded to the dean, canons, and chapter of Quebec relief against an ordinance of the Bishop of Quebec which assigned to the grand-chantre in f. ure the installation of the canons ; an arret of June 30, 1750, gave relief to the chapter of Quebec against an abuse of ecclesiastical power ; and an arret of October 16, 1750, confirmed Le Sieur Rtcher in possession of the cure of Quebec. In all these cases, and many others, a lay tribunal decided matters which one H ! ■ Hi '■'i i I MA ! ' i' m II ^- lis 1^ wM mt ra t, jm H Mf Jll 11 jSi w '■■'■> _ *■ ■ ■■ iftr i' m t30 /?0A/£ /JV C/IN^D^. party ref^anled as purely ecclesiastical ; and the clcrf(y, far from denying the jurisdiction, had recourse to it them- selves to secure their own rights.* The victory on the argument remained with the parish priest of Longueuil ; but Ultramont.inisin had shown what it was in future to attempt. In point of fact, the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench adjudicited upon all this class of questions : questions (jf tithes, of the concession of seats in the church, the affairs of the Fab- rique, and a thousand others. Some years previous to the erection of the bishf)pric of Montreal, the Hishop of Quebec had appealed to the ecclesiastical law of France in suj)[)ort of his claims in a qucsticjii between himself and the Government. A large number of priests in the district of Quebec openly sustained the views ot M. Chaboillez. The Galil- eans of Quebec were only tf> be fmally silenced after the pul)lication of the Vatican Decrees. The quality of priest m Quebec only detracts from the rights of the citizen in one particular: the priest can vote at parliamentary elections, and is eligible for elec- tion either to the House of Commons or to the Legisla- ture of the Province, but he cannot be elected a munici- pal councillor. He is exempt from military and militia service, and from serving on juries. He can be elected school commissioner without the ordinary qualification. He enjoys his tithes in virtue of an Act of the British Parliament. He is entitled to the fixed emoluments aris- ing from the celebration of masses for the repose of souls, from foundations and other casual revenues, which are supposed to be fixed by the bishops, but which are not always uniform in amount. It is his duty to read, after divine service, any proclamation or act which the Gover- nor may require him to read. It is his duty to keep a ♦ R^ponse de Messire Chaboillez, Curi de Longueuil, h la lettre de P. H. Bidard, sui*c by whom the laws are made, is real and urgent. * H. F. L.inf{cvin. Droit admin. Ml l' VII. THE PROGRAMME. On the approach of the elections (or tlie House of Com- mons in 1871, the Progrnmme QUholiquc * offered a very positive direction to Roman CathoHc voters. Yet, except an extract it contained from a pastoral letter of the Bishop of Three Rivers, it was not a document which had the force of ecclesiastical authority. It came into the world withcut a sponsfjr ; it went about like a literary waif, and was apparently invested with no more importance than usually attaches to an anonymrnis newspaper article of the 'campaign' order, intended to influence the future of an election. But somehow men did attach to it an unusual importance. It carried with it proof that a new element in jiolitical elections had presented itself; and that hencefortli the Church of Rf^me was to aim at poli- tical control. Before hmg, candidates of both parties were toj surrender themselves captive to the concealed authors of the Programme. The pastoral letter in rjuestion formed the text of the Programme. On it the authors of the I-'rcjgramme built as on a corner-stone. The l>ishop liad reminded the electors that the representatives to be elected were charged to protect and (hifend tlie religious interests of the elect(jrs, in accordance with the spirit of the Church, as a means of promoting and prcjtecling their temporal intere-its. The civil laws, he said, were necessarily in accord with religion on a great number (;f j)oints. As a mere matter of prudence, the electors were to assure ♦ Fimt published in Le Journal dei Trots Rivv'.res, April 20, 1870. 1 ' i ; '54 i^OME IN CANADA. themselves that the candidate to whom they gave their suffrages was duly qualified in both respects, and that he offered, morally speaking, every guarantee for the protec- tion of these grave interests. The full liberty which the Constitution accorded to the Catholic worship in Canada enabled it to be carried on conformably to the rules of the Church. By a judicious choice of legislators, the electors would ensure the preservation of this right, the most precious of all, which gave the bishops ' the im- mense advantage of being able to govern the Church of Canada according to the immediate prescriptions and directions of the Holy See and the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all the Churches.' There was nothing very startling in this, beyond the bare fact <^hat the Bishop of Three Rivers desired that the Church of Rome should use its influence to sway the elections in its own interests. But nothing was said in iavour of one political policy or against another: no individual candidates were pointed out for approval or condemnation ; much less was there any hint of a resort to spiritual censures to coerce the will of reluctant voters. But there was in the pastoral enough to build a Pro- gramme upon. The authors of the Programme took the ground, that so close is the connection between politics and religion that the separation of Church and State — to which the Legislature had committed itself a quarter of a century before — was * an absurd and impious doctrine ; ' and especially was this true under the constitutional regime, under which Parliament exercises the whole power of legislation, and which places in the hands of those of whom Parliament is composed a double- edged weapon, of which a terrible use could be made. For this reason it was necessary that those to whose hands the legislative power is committed ' should be in perfect accord with the teachings of the Church.' i I THE PROGRAMME. X55. For this reason it was the duty of Catholic electors to se- lect for their representatives men whose principles are perfectly sound and certain. • Full and entire adhesion to Roman Catholic doctrines in religion, in politics, and in social economy, ought,' continued the authors ol the Pro- gramme, ' to be the first and principal qualification which the Catholic electors should require from the candidate.' By observing this rule, they would best be able to judge of men and things. It was necessary, the Programmists went on to say, 'to consider the circumstances in which the country is placed, existing political parties and their antecedents.' The writers belonged to what they considered the Conservative party, the defenders of social authority ; • a group of men professing sincerely the same principles of religion, patriot- ism, and nationality ; ' inviolably attached to Catholic doc- trines and manifesting an absolute devotion to the national interests of Lower Canada. Besides this, a decided pre- ference for the political party which goes under the name of Conservative was avowed. But the support to be given to this party was ' to be subordinated to the interests of religion,' of which the electors were never to lose sight. If the laws contained aught which placed Catholic inter- ests in peril, a pledge was to be exacted from the candidate that he would do what he could to remove the defect. The laws relating to marriage, edacation, the erection of parishes and the registres de Vetat civil — the register of baptisms, marriages, and burials which the cures are by law required to keep — derogated from the rights of the Church, interfered with its liberty and put difficulties in the way of its administration, or was capable of a hostile interpretation. ' This state of things,' the Programmists boldly averred, ' imposes on Catholic legislators the duty of changing and modifying these laws, in the way in which our Lords the Bishops of the Province demand, *■: J ■ i < - Mi ■if ; I i'4f,- 156 ROME IN CANADA. to the end that they may be put into harmony with the doctrines of the Roman CathoUc Church.' The electors were told that they ought to require from the candidates a pledge to this effect as a condition of receiving their support. ' It is the duty,' the Programme asserted in so many words, ' of the electors to give their votes only to those who are willing to conform entirely to the teachings of the Church in these matters.' Where there were two Conservative candidates, or two Liberal candidates, that one which would accept these conditions was to be preferred. As between a Conserva- tive and ' an adept of the Liberal School,' the former was always to be [^referred; except where the Liberal accept- ed, and the Conservative rejected, the Programme, and in that case abstention from voting was recommended. However objectionable the Programme might be, there was nothing in it which any number of persons wishing to produce an influence on thp elections had not a right to resort to. But as a first essay, a tentative moveme*it, it went to the utmost verge of prudence. The influence of the Programme belonged to the order of moral coercion. It carried terror with it as it passed from journal to jour- nal, and gained conquests, on either hand, from timidity in the prospect of defeat. Next year, a step far in advance of the Programme was to be taken. liiiii^ VIII. THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. The first war in which the army of writers journalists, pamphleteers, authors of comedies, anti-Gallican trea- tises and sermons, who acknowledged Bishop Bourget as commander-in-chief, was domestic : it was waged against all who refused, at once, submissively to accept the extreme doctrines of the New School; against the Sulpicians of Montreal, the late Archbishop of Quebec, and Vicar-General Cazeau ; against Vicar-General Ray- mond, and all others who were suspected of the heresy of Gallicanism or Catholic liberalism. In this army, the figure of one of the captains, who con- sented to lead the lorlorn hope, attracts special attention. Alphonse Villeneuve scorns all danger, and contemptuous- ly refuses to listen to the voice of discretion. He addresses Pius IX. as the 'infallible Pontiff and the supreme king of Christian kingdoms.' After bestowing a fulsome eulogy on the Pope, he proceeds to lead the onslaught on the Sulpicians. His soul, he tells the Holy Father, is deso- lated with a great desolation, because in the holy place, the Church of Montreal, the abomination of Gallicanism has appeared. The Sulpicians have become the unhappy victims of a diabolical illusion, and have implanted the germs of a schism which he cannot better designate than by comparing it to Cainism. Half a century ago, the peace of the Church was broken by the Sulpicians. The Levites were the first Catholics who attempted to free themselves from religious authority. They refused to re- cognize Bishop Lartigue, and tried to induce the Protes- 'I m t . : 'S i',(, 1 i i- i ' > 1 1 ■ ,■ (■ ! : t ■ • ! •' U . il '. I 158 ROME IN CANADA. tant Government to deprive him of his powers. They con- tended that his nomination was null, because the Pope, in instituting him, had violated the holy canons ; • as if the infallible Pope was not above the canons.' Because the Bishop of Montreal insisted on dividing that city into a number of parishes, contrary to the civil laws as expound- ed by the best authorities, the Sulpicians commiited the sin of refusing to aid his operations, and had the temerity to appeal to the Pope against the act ; ' as if,' says Ville- neuve, ' the Syllabus did not condemn a like pretension ; in case of legal conflict between the two powers, the civil law ought to prevail.' Then follows a catalogue of the crimes of the Sulpicians, who contended that : without the intervention of the bishops, the Superior of the Semiriary could authorize Sulpicians to preach, hear confe: 'ons, absolve reserved cases, go beyond the limits of their diocese, name priests to the care of souls, at the Lake of Two Mountains, and do a number of other similar things. When the Bishop of Montreal insisted on depriving them of a part of their income, they were charged with the crime of having been guilty of calling him a robber. Their dislike of the bishop's encouragement of the Jesuits is set down as the jealousy of Cain. They are charged with having recourse to lying and false pretext. When the bishop threatened them with spoliation, they attempted to induce the Fabrique of Montreal to commit the crime of talking the cause be- fore the civil tribunals. After being guilty of the scandal of defending their property, they committed the additional enormity of declaring themselves innocent. In appealing to Rome, the Sulpicians might have seen that they made a mistake : the Pope was certain to side with the bishop.* The good man, says their calumniator. ♦ In his reply, Sept. 24, 1867, the Pope said : ' Posu regtre EccUsian Dei. Episcop et HOH Sulpicianoi THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 159 found it impossible to respect the Sulpicians. In their service, he adds, a school of able men had been found, ♦ deserters and renegades to our traditions, who in politics, in the magistrature, and in the press, emit the accursed principles of ancient Gallicanism.' The writer finds a striking similitude between Cain and the Sulpicians, be- tween the sin of the one and the crime of the other. The Sulpicians, another count reads, ruin the ecclesiastical authority, and assist in submitting the spouse of Christ to the secular arm. The writers of the New School determined on an open attack, and tried to persuade the public that they were combatting bad faith and the lying Gallicanism of the Sulpicians and their partisans. The contest must be carried on in the arena of public opinion, a contest which they determined to pursue with a savagery which, Ville- neuve confesses, did not well become the character of a priest, but to which, nevertheless, he did not scruple to resort. In this battle he admits the episcopate and the clergy appeared like men exercising a stroke of vengeance. Before commencing the onset, Villeneuve confesses that he hesitated and waited ; but as no one appeared to lead the attack, he opened fire ' upon the fortress of Saint Sulpice, the refuge of Gallicanism and Catholic Liberalism.' If his book took the form of comedy, it was that he might laugh down the satanic illusion under which these errors flourished. Our author makes it a new crime in the Sulpicians that, according to him, they did not allow themselves to be calumniated with impunity, but the gives no proof of their having made any reply. Before the appointment of M. Lartigue to a somewhat anomalous position in the episcopacy the Sulpicians had had pretty much their own way. The disciplinary arm of the Bishop of Quebec was almost too short to reach them, and they scarcely felt his authority at all. M. i ml :l V !, ? i% Si i6o ROME IN CANADA. Lartiguegave early indications that ne intended to govern the ecclesiastics of the district of Montreal ; and the Sulpicians seem to have felt his presence to be an intru- sion. Still, they did nothing to occasion an open rupture. They did not even encourage the independent attack which M. Chaboillez made on his appointment ; on the contrary, they induced him to refrain from publishing his first pamphlet a whole year after it had been written, The Seminary was rich, and the new Suffragan Auxiliary was poor. His friends contended that the Sulpicians should have made a provision for him ; they exaggerated his poverty and privations, with a view of exciting odium against the Sulpicians. They told many similar stories to the disadvantage of the rich corporation, such as refusing to provide M. Musard the means, which he did not himself possess, of making a voyage to Europe, on which his medical advisers said his life depended. In reply to his application, the Superior is represented as having said to his suffering brother : * My dear sir, it is better to die in this manner than to go against the rules of the House.' At the same time, other members of the Seminary are represented as being allowed to spend large sums on voyages to Europe. The Seminary is charged with having refused to build a church in the Faubourg Quebec, or to announce a col- lection which the bishop desired to have taken \ip for the erection of the church of St. James'. The friends of the bishop were uneasy because he could not control a part of the revenues of the Sulpicians ; and the latter is repre- sented as having stated that the bishop desired to have half the income derived from their estates handed over to him. Sometimes matters were carried to an extremity that caused the partisans of the bishop to represent that the danger of a schism was imminent. Now and then a Sulpician priest did ally himself with the bishop, and li^|; ,, J ; THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. i6i against his own order. If he was ambitious he was not without motives for taking that course, for it was the only one that could lead to bishoprics and other high digni- ties. Twelve Sulpicians are reported to have left the Seminary in a few years preceding that of 1847. As the members of the Seminary continued to be recruited from the *^ulpicians of Paris, the corporation was attacked on national grounds. It was pretended that it had not become acclimatized, had not taken root in the soil. The necessity of prohibiting the importation of additional French priests was often insisted upon. The prohibition, which had some time before been made by the Bishop of Quebec, looked to a return to the policy on which, during the lifetime of a whole generation after the conquest, the British Government had, for other and national reasons, insisted, and against which the prede- cessors of this bishop had never ceased to protest. But while the hierarchy had swung completely round the circle, there had been consistency in its course. It had always, and while apparently pursuing the most opposite policy, had in view the increase of its own influence. The Seminary was reproached with having no influence in the city of Montreal but that which its money purchased.* The jealousy which the Seminary excited in the other clergy was extreme. It continued to be a nursery of Gallicanism long after Gallicanism had become hateful in the eyes of the bishop. On the first appointment of M. Lartiguc the Govern- ment reiused to allow him to take the title of Bishop of Montreal. It is insinuated that this fact was not without its influence in causing the Sulpicians to refuse to provide him with a shelter during a period of fifteen years, and m f I M ! I m I ' t . f ; ■ I h : ' V- £11 i, '., i If ' ' •' ,1 ■ m * Brouillon de notes envoyeesa M. Faillon, en Avril, 1S50, sur I'opinion du Dioctse de Montreal. Par M. Jos. Marcoux, missionnaire des sauvages du Sault St. Louis, Caughnawaj^a. . tl 1 6a ROME IN CANADA. that when they did offer him quarters, he was no longer in need of them.* The result of the division between the ecclesiastics was to divide the laymen into two parties which cordially hated one another ;t but all the writers who preceded him had not done one-half as much to inflame that hatred as Alph. Villeneuve. The truth is, the time had come when the New School felt strong enough to make a mortal attack on its ancient enemy, with the hope of extinguishing the last remnant of liberal Catholic thought in the Pro- vince of Quebec. With this explanation, anyone who desires to turn to that work willbethebetter able to understand Villeneuve's Comedie Infernale, on Conjuration Liberale atix Enfers. The scene is laid in the audience hall of the palace of Pande- monium, fortress of Satan, between two deep gorges in the middle of Venfers.X Time, December ist, 1870. Lucifer is seated on his throne. Astoroth addresses him : ' Prince of the dark asylum, this day will be for thy faith- ful subjects a day of ineffable joy. To celebrate thy recent triumphs over the Church, tl. ^ infernal regions have come * Mumoirede Mgr. J. N. Provencher, Ev' que de Juliopolis, afterwards Bishop of St. Boniface, Red River. + Messire de J. B. Ch. Btdard. X The fol'owing are the dramatis penoncs .•— Lucifer, Belzebuth, Leviathan, Astoroth, Babel, Carreau, Belial, Oliver, Baalberith, Axaphat, Fume-Bouchc, Perrler, Delias, Rosier, Baal, Prince des Demons. Prince des SOraphins. Prince des Churubins. Prince des Trclnes. Prince des Vertua. Prince des Puissances. Prince des Principaut^s. Prince des Archanges. Prince des Anges. General des Tr6nes. Lieutenant des Puissances. Due des Empires. Amiial des Vertus, General des Principautes. Vieux Chef retire du service. THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 163 to place their homage at thy feet, and to make these secular arches resound with their songs of joy.' Lucifer understands this enthusiasm ; Europe having definitively set out on the road to damnation. After much fatigue, Belzobuth discovers in America a Catholic people on the banks of a majestic river. Lucifer recog- nizes in the description the Canadian people, with whom he has been acquainted from their origin. Nearly twenty years before he had instructed Carreau (which some insist must be read Cartier) to resort to special ruses, by which he had more or less suc- ceeded. Bclzcbuth is able to bear witness to the in- comparable zeal of Carreau ; but he had been indiscreet in being too openly impious to deceive so profoundly reli- gious a people. Alter a number of older errors had been broken down, Lucifer asked for, and obtained, Galilean Churches and Liberal Governments. By aid of the mitre and the mantle of religion, Belial bears witness, liberal- ism and Gallicanism everywhere obtained admittance. Those who professed the new error * fell asleep in a pious delusion ; they believed they were serving the Church in denying its authority, its supremacy, and its rights over the State. The Catholic populations the more readily fell into these snares as they were allured on by the most religious of men.' (Lucifer retires.) As Belzt'buth fiad sojourned a whole year in Canada, Belial asks him for a description of the country. ' Wil- lingly,' is the reply : ' In the first place, it is a country altogether Catholic, and entirely devoted to the Pope. These young men whom I have seen at Rome were the Canadian Zouaves.' ' A bad sign,' remarked Astoroth ; ' very bad,' chimed in Belial. Whereupon Belzrbuth im- plored them not to despair. • Lucifer,' he observed, ' seeing that impiety did not take in Canada, since I'ln- stitut Canadien, in spite of the ability of the DessauUes, II ;< I I' I ilfil ir,4 ROME IS CASADA. l.tT^- the Dmitrcs, the Lanctots, and several similar celebrities, had been able to attract to its bosom oidy souls lost by atiticipation, counselled Carreau to leave aside, for a while, the heavy artillery, and proceed to the attack with the li{,dit infantry of Catholic liberalism.' He explains that in Montreal, with a population of a hundred and sixty thousand souls, there is but a single cure. From Rome instructions had come to the Bishop of Montreal to divide the city into several parishes. This the bishop was most anxious to do; but the gentlemen of the Seminary, pre- tending to be perpetual cures of the city, interposed objec- tions : they had always opposed the episcopal authority. • No matter,' word came from Rome, 'do your duty, dis- member the parish of Notre-Dame.' The bishop, "s in duty bound, obeyed ; but not without foreseeing that he should meet with serious opposition from the Perpetual Cures. Belzcbuth bears witness that it is not in the nature of Galileans to submit. The Perpetual Curos protested, and carried their protest to Rome. They raised every possible prejudice, saying: 'The bishop desires to despoil and ruin us.' Other persons were heard to say, that the bishop was desirous to render himself master of the property of the Perpetual Cures. The entire rebellion was fermented by two or three of the Perpetual Cures. Carreau urged on the opposition of this rich corporation, which was strong by means of its political friendships. In order the better to succeed, the civil laws were studied, and in them some ambiguities regarding the division of parishes were found. The Per- petual Cures had always desired to form an independent power in the Church in Canada. The first Bishop of Quebec had proved, at Rome, that they were disobedient priests, opposed to the Holy See, and in fine Jansenists. When a late Bishop of Montreal gathered the Jesuits, the Oblats, and other religious orders around him, the THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. ir.j Perpetual Cures ol>jectcd, at Rome, that he had no ri^^ht to do so without their permission. Their present Su- perior went so far as publicly to announce that the bishop, in conforming to the apostolic decree of Dec. 22, acted without prudence, with injustice, and in opposition to the interest of souls. In spite of tiie immense revenue of the parish of Montreal, where the casual dues are very high, they affirmed that the parish owed them four hundred thousand dollars. Tiiey give a hundred and forty-four dollars per head to the Christian Brothers (Frires des Ecoles Chrotiennes), and something to the Sisters of tlie Congregation, to aid them in supporting a little class of the poor, in four different localities. For the sick, the infirm, for orphans, they give nothing, or next to nothing. In contrast to this picture, Belzcbuth gives one of the Oblats, whose knowledge and virtue he lauds. But their great virtue is that they bow submissively to the Pope, believe in his infallibility, are devoted to the Church, and everywhere submit themselves to episcopal auihority. The parishes being canonically erected, the Perpetual Curds caused the State to withdraw the civil registers therefrom, alleging that the bishop cannot canonically erect a parisih without obtaining the suffrages of the ma- jority ; that the cures of the canonical parishes, not civilly recognized, are incompetent to celebrate marriages ; that the cure of a parish, canonical and civil, has a territorial jurisdiction and duties which the ecclesiastical authority can neither affect nor diminish ; that the euro, canonical and civil, can be constrained by the tribunals to perform baptisms, marriages, and sepulchres for the parishioners of a canonical parish. After this explanation, Astoroth breaks forth : ' I now comprehend the thoughts of Carreau in the whole affair; he desires to establish Gallicanism in Canada, for such pretensions are Gallican.' * Thou divinest truly,' quoth *^ 1 ■ i P' f 1fi I r ■{ ii 1 i • Vii l66 ROME IN CANADA. Belzi'buthj 'these pretensions of the Perpetual Cures are condemned by the Syllabus of 1864.' Sir George Cartier is represented by one of the demons as having inspired the Minerve to say that the law re- quires the observance oi certain formalities in the forma- tion of a parish which no power can set aside, and which, in the present instance, have not beer complied with. And to support their pretensions, the Perpetual Cures in- duced a judge to write a code against the pretensions of Rome and of the bishop. The demons who are made to espouse the cause ot the bishop, represent the Perpetual Cures as being guilty of an incredible degree of bad faith, and making statements ' entirely false ; ' as persecuting priests who took part with the bishop ; as entering into intrigues to carry their point ; as being guilty of the enormity of discouraging persons engaged in getting up a bazaar for the benefit of the Jesuits. When the Guibord af^n'r came under discussion, Belze- buth confessed that he hud blown the ' cannibal inspira- tion of Joseph Doutre against the Jesuits, as well as the historical d'osertation of Louis Dessaulles.' The plaidoyer of M. Trv.del, the advocate of the Church, in this case, was approved by two of the great theologians at Rome. Before the opening of the seventh scene, Belzebuth re- sumes his throne, and makes a sign to the demons to take their seats. He tells Carreau, who is present for the first time, that he had been awaiting him with impatience ; he had heard of his successes and hio fears. He desired to re- ceive him in the bosom of his council, and encouraged him to speak with confidence, as the hall was surrounded by legions of deaf and dumb demons. Being thus reassured, Carreau tells the illustrious monarch that he has followed his late counsel to the letter. ' I left aside impiety for a while,' he said, 'to occupy myself more specially with errors \ I THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 167 which had a Cathohc look. I profited by the burning question of the division of Montreal into parishes ; a book, the Code des Cures, by Judge Baudry, appeared, proclaim- ing perverse doctrines, but possessing a certain Catiiolic mirage.' Lucifer. — * What is this book at bottom ? ' Carrcau. — 'The author, while protesting his devotion to the Church and his respect for ecclesiastical authority, while affirming that he does not desire the separation of Church and State, nor the subordination of the Church to the State ' Several demons. — ' Why affirm such doctrines ? ' Lucifer. — ' Listen, wait to hear the end before blaming.' Carreau. — ' The author, while affirming these Catholic doctrines, employs his time and his pen in establishing those of an entirely opposite character.' Lucifer. — ' I know it well.' Carreau. — ' He establishes, in the first place : that, in Canada, the bishop is not at liberty to take the initiative in the formation of any parish whatever, canonical or civil ; that for this purpose, it is necessary to wait for a request from the majority ot the people, even when the salvation of a whole town evidently requires this to be done, when the canons of the Church are clear, and the conscience of the pastor engaged.' All in Chorus. — 'Vive le Code des Cures.' Carreau. — ' Secondly, that the bishop is not at liberty to say that property consecrated to God, and which has come out of the common mass, for example the property of the Fabriques, is the property of the Catholic Church.' All in Chorus. — 'Long live the author of the Code des Cures.' The debates of the Vatican Council had begun to alarm Carreau, and made him think of giving up the work which Lucifer had counselled him to do. ' I must avow,' he I. :,;. M •■» -lii 168 ROME IN CANADA. 4 ?? said, * that it would perhaps be better to abandon the affair of the parishes, Gallicanism, and Catholic liberal- ism ; for I have observed that, since the great debates in the Vatican Council, people have been on their guard against these doctrines. Lucifer. — ' Explain thyself.' Carreau. — ' Before the controversy on infallibility be- gan, the liberal writings of Dupanloup, Montalembert, and others, were much lauded in Canada. The Minerve, the journal de Quebec, the Echo du Cabinet de Lecture, published and praised the speeches delivered at the dif- ferent congresses of Malines by these celebrated Catho- lics. Even the Revue Canadienne vaunted Dupanloup's book on the encyclical of the 8th Deer.' Lucifer. — * And since the Coun- il? ' Carreau. — ' These same journals have preserved an ex- treme reserve with regard to these illustrious writers.' Lucifer. — ' Are these journals in favour of Ultramon- tanism?' Carreau. — ' The jfournal de Quebec, no ;* but the Min- erve, yes!' Carreau is inclined to hope against hope, and comforts himself with the reflection that Gallicanism, which is the basis of Catholic liberalism, penetrated into Canada with the French law, and that it still possesses considerable re- sources in the education of members of the bar. Lucifer, in consideration of the fact that Canada is a profoundly religious country, the country on which heaven reposes, concluded that all the forces of hell must be concentrated against it ; at which all approve by shouting bravo ! bravo ! bravissimo ! ' This affair,' he said, * of the parishes of Montreal is founded on the liberty of the Church, on its supremacy, and those who oppose priests and seculars * The answer would now be yes, but with a disposition to orevent extreme encroach- ments on the part of the clergy. il THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. i6q can triumph only in subjugating the Church.' Everything. Lucifer admits, depends on the colour of the politics ; when these cease to have a Catholic complexion, the people soon follow the same impulses in other respects. A system of erroneous politics had enabled the demons to triumph in Europe, and now a commencement must be made in Canada ; success in that enterprise would render everything else easy. Baal tells how this is to be done : * Confine yourself to preventing the authority of the Church being accepted in politics : Proclaim that kings, civil powers, legislation, are independent of the Church; that the family, mar- riage, education, are purely civil institutions, and tint the Church has no control over them : by that means, you will deprive the State of that divine light and that borrowed force which it requires to enable it to march in the straight path. To separate Church and State is to sap the foundation of the work of salvation; because it is to take trom nations and governments the graces of state which are necessary to their salvation.' In the eleventh scene, Belzebuth exposes the political error — Caesarism — of which he declares himself the father. Evidently referring to the four articles of the Galilean liberties, he says ; ' I assumed the air of an apostle, and said, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. Only I made the division: I gave everything to Caesar, and nothing unto God.' Being asked what the Church says of the doctrine of the separation of the two powers, Lucifer answers, that she necessarily condemns it. ' She says that, having been established in the world without the aid of the throne, she ought to surpass the throne ; that the State can never surpass her, and thus can never separate from her. The doctrine of the separation of the two powers is therefore satanic' • i , f : ^■U ' .^' iitjiii fl^^^n mhs a ' 1 I Wa nf f 1 WU , nV mm M 170 ROME IN CANADA. The Programme Catholiqne and its history become a subject of the infernal dialogue. The Programme is described as having been the work of six laymen, and its object, to assure for the future, by means of parliamentary elections, an exclusively Catholic policy. It in effect told the electors to vote only for those who promised to support the bishops in questions on which they might be called upon to legislate. The opposition of the Minerve to the Programme is represented as having been inspired by Sir George Cartier, whose opposition to the dismemberment of the parish of Notre-Dame had embroiled him with the bishop. The words put into the mouth of Astoroth represent very fairly the spirit of party : ' To be a Conservative,' the Minerve is made to say, ' it is necessary to be disciplined and obedient. When one joins a party, he comes under an engagement to obey its chiefs in everything.' No Conservative, the statement is ventured, could have been elected unless he had promised to support the bishops, a promise which, it is admitted, was never before exacted. Three bishops complained of the inconvenience which resulted from the Programme having been drawn up without consultation with the episcopate. In the discussion which the Pro- gramme provoked, the jfounial de Quebec rejected the doctrine of the subordination of the State to the Church ; conduct which Rosier qualifies as atheistical. In the third act, the demons are in a state of conster- nation, when Lucifer announces that their deliberations of the first of December, 1870, and the second of August, 1871, have been laid before the Canadian public in the Comedie Infernale. The resolution is come to that the Perpetual Cures must be defended. It is of course intended that the defence shall prove a failure. The Seminary is represented to be in a state of rebellion against the Holy See ard the bishop, and its right of appeal to Rome, THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 171 which is admitted to exist, is, in the exercise, treated as an abuse. * The poor Sulpicians desire to govern the Church, but they have not received the graces necessary for that purpose. It is the bishop who, lor that end, has received a special grace.' The Sulpicians are made responsible for the opposition of Chaboillez to Mgr. Lartigue, though the documents on which the Comedie professes to be founded clearly show this assumption to be false. They are represented as carrying their zeal for the Government to an extreme length. ' We must not,' says Baalberith, ' be astonished at this monstrous conduct. The Galileans, whether priests or not, are capable of attemptmg everything, even excom- municating the Governments which refuse to molest the Church.' There is no doubt that the suffragan, Mgr. deTelmesse, was not a welcome guest with the Seminary, which would have preferred that the seat o* episcopal authority should have remained as far distant from their establishment as the city of Quebec. But if themarguilliers of the parish of Notre-Dame refused the episcopal throne to Mgr. de Telmesse, it must be remembered that he refused to exhibit the bulls in virtue of which he claimed to be en- titled thereto. M. Olier, who founded the Order of Sulpicians, is repre- sented as having expressed the most absolute submission to the prelates, and as having gone so far as to say that if the Order should ever place itself in opposition to them, he should demand the destruction of the House, which would become the object of anathema in the face of the whole universe. It is unquestionably true that the Sulpi- cians of Montreal have so far departed from this rule as to have been in a state of perpetual and chronic opposi- tion to the bishops of Montreal, since the day of their creation to the present time. But the antagonism was ii mmmmmmm it ■" 172 ROME IN CANADA. mutual, and the bishops may fairly be credited with the larger share of the acerbity which the quarrel evoked. The appointment of Mgr. Lartigue was resented as being in opposition to the Galilean liberties : it had not been preceded by the inquest de commodo et incommodo. The Pope was charged with violating the canons to which he owed obedience. Villeneuve makes Lucifer expose this error, that the Popes have not ' received from Christ authority, plenary power, supreme and universal.' Such a power could not, of course, be subordinate and depen- dent. Lartigue was a Sulpician, and as the Bishop of Quebec had no revenue which he could allocate to his suffragan, it seems to have been intended that he should have continued to live in the House ol the Sulpicians, and that they should have provided him a suitable revenue. But this was not their view of the matter : they thought that when the Bishop of Quebec procured the appoint- ment of a suffragan, he should have been in a position to assign him a suitable revenue. The Sulpicians are much reproached for not providing a palace and an income for Mgr. Lartigue ; but the reproach is not just, for they were under no obligation to do, in this particular, what it is pretended they ought to have done. The most fatal blow that could be dealt to the Sulpi- cians was to divide the parish of Notre-Dame. The Bishop of Montreal being at Rome, in 1854, had a con- versation on the subject with the Secretary of the x^ropa- ganda. Cardinal Barnabo, when the later volunteered to authorize its dismemberment. At a later period, the Semi- nary demanded a hearing at Rome, but it was destined to be defeated. It then came to pass that, in pursuance oi orders from Rome, the city of Montreal was carved up into a number of parishes, in defiance of the laws of the land, as interpreted by Judge Baudry and other respectable authorities. THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 173 Villeneuve divides the Conservatives into Ultramon- tans and liberal Catholics: the latter he describes as being deceived by the Sulpicians. Lucifer apoloffizes for Sir George Cartier, and says that he and the other Conserva- tives are submissive to the Church, and that the Sulpicians have exercised a particular pressure on him in the matter of the dismemberment. There was, it cannot be denied, a real anomaly in Sir George being the counsel ior the Seminary, when, as a public man, he had to decide be- tween them and the bishop. In the fifth act, the Jesuits, by contrast with the Sulpi- cians, are liberally bespattered with praise. If the latter engaged in worthy enterprises, the Jesuits, and after them the Oblats, are represented as always leading the way. In the fourth act, the following dialogue takes place among the demons : — Bellas. — ' The Society of Jesus is the invincible fortress of Ultramontanism.' Oliver. — 'The Society of Jesus is the mortal and sworn enemy of Gallicanism and liberalism.' All. — ' The Society of Jesus ought to be the supreme and highest object of our anger, of our combats, and our vengeance.' Lucifer. — * Ah ! Let us combat the Jesuits I Chase them from Canada and our cause is gained ! ' Babel. — * It is all very fine to talk, mais que f aire ?' Oliver. — ' We have attempted everything since they have been in existence.' Babel. — ' In Canada, we have scarcely done anything against them since their return. The wisdom of Lucifer did not desire that we should.' Lucifer (furious). — ' Thou liest viper ! Thou liest !' Babel (derisively). — ' It is true I forgot that Big | 'S.had chanted the hymn of the cannibals, on the altar of their generous martyrs !' }-u\ !! 174 ROME IN CANADA. Bdzehuth (sensibly piqued). — ' And this hymn has had its effect.' Babel. — ' I do not desire to blame Belzebuth for havinfj inspired it. I desire only to recall what has been done. They ought to have been persecuted, chased . . . .' Several voices. — ' Bravo ! Bravo !' Baalhcrith. — « Thus, then, it is agreed : war to the Jesuits ! All.—' War to the Jesuits !' Baalberith. — * Only it is probable that we shall not suc- ceed. They enjoy, in Canada, great consideration and high esteem. The people venerate them. The clergy and the bishops give them their protection. The Bishop of Montreal, especially, is their benefactor and devoted protector. He has already given extraordinary proofs of the special affection which he bears them. On their part, the Jesuits entertain for his eminence a respect, a venera- tion, and a devotion, which are proof against every- thing.' Lucifer. — ' The Bishop of Montreal, is he not ill ?' Baalberith. — * Very seriously.' Lucifer. — ' So much the better, if he went we . . .' Several voices. — ' Let him die ! Let him die 1 ' Baalberith. — 'Another senseless desire 1' Lucifer.—' What ?' Baalberith. — * In dying the venerable Bishop of Mont- real would not abandon his diocese. More than now he would be the angel (great emotion), Baalberith. — * His blessed shade would hover over his town and his diocese.' Here we see distinctly the author's attitude towards the different parties in the Church of Rome : mortal enmity to the Sulpicians, praise and encouragement for the Jesu- its. Those countries which, in self-defence, have at dif- ferent times been obliged to expel the Jesuits, were, if we THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LLBERT/ES. 175 accept the assurance of Villeneuve, inspired thereto by Luciler. It is possible, ooking at history, to imagine a contingency in which the suggestion put into the mouth of Lucifer, in the infernal dialogue, might become a prophesy. Let us here recall the fact that Le Comidic hifcrnale was written in the interest of the Bishop of Montreal and to aid in the dismemberment of the parish of Notre-Dame ; that this onslaught on the Sulpicians, vile in conception and malignant in execution, was accepted by that high dignitary without protest and apparently with gratitude ; that the book was not consigned to the Index or received with disapprobation at Rome ; and that to answer it was treated as a crime by the highest ecclesiastical function- ary in the diocese of Montreal. The Sulpicians may comfort themselves, if they can find any comfort in the companionship of misery or mis- fortune, by reflecting that they had not to bear alone the whole weight of the Ultramontane attack. At the distance of a year from the appearance of the Programme Catholique came the celebration of the golden wedding of the priesthood of the Bishop of Montreal. And now that tentative programme, that literary enfant tronvc which was fondled with such deep affection, was left far behind, like a guide-post which had served the Ultramontanes on their march, and which now remained to mark the track over which they passed in their triumphant march. The ashes of Gallicanism still smoul- dered, like the remains of a sacred fire, on the hearth of the Archiepiscopal palace at Quebec. The 'venomous serpent' of Catholic Liberalism still glided about in forbidden places, making accursed that which ought to be holy. The golden wedding would attract a majority of the Episcopate and a large body of the inferior clergy. The occasion might be seized by the Ultramontanes for send- ing forth a manifesto in the shape of a sermon. 'J he blow 'J f ;!' I M 1 i| 176 ROME IN CANADA. thus to be struck at the GalHcans could be tiiadc to tell with stunning effect. So it was arranged. The Jesuit l^raiin, whose principles had been revealed in his work on marriage, was selected to deliver the sermon. He would be glad of an opportunity to deal a nameless blow at the Archbishop and all who shared his views. This would at once avenge an old grudge and advance the good cause. It is only on very special occasions that a simple priest, who can never be more than a simple priest, is permitted the distinction of preaching before a congregation embrac- ing many high dignitaries, including archbishop, bishops, and priests. This distinction the Jesuit Braiin now enjoyed. He began by saying that, in dispensing spiritual gifts to the faithful, their euros and bishops v^ere to them other Christs. Their father, the bishop whose golden wedding was being celeb*"ated, had gone about doing good ; and they were to second his efforts by their docility and zeal. In enumerating the rights ol the Church, which he under- took to defend against the * errors ' of the day, he claimed for her the prerogative of making laws to bind the consci- ence, and to which the State is bound to submit ; of making laws on the subject of marriage ; of erecting parishes, without the intervention of the civil power ; of superintending education in public schools. The State was bound to yield implicit obedience to the Church. The fashion of looking on the majority as the source of right, now in vogue, was a revival of the old Pagan des- potism. ' Gallicanism and Liberal Catholicism,' said the Jesuit preacher, ' have powerfully contributed to the propagation of all these errors.' ' Gallicanism' he defined to be ' in- subordination towards the Holy Father, servility to the civil power, despotism towards inferiors.' ' The Gallican,' he added, ' refuses to obey the Pope, against whom he arms THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIDEKTLES. 177 liimsclf with the protection of the powers of this earth ; while he grants to the civil power, which protects him in his rebellion, all the authority which he refuses to the Sov- ereign Pontiff. Everywhere the Gallicansare the flatterers of the civil power, to which they have recourse even in ecclesiastical cases, in which the bishop or the Sovereign Pontiff should have the right of adjudication. 'This in- subordination towards the Holy Father, and this servility towards the civil power,' the preacher reminded his hearers, * was stigmatized by Pope Innocent XL, in a brief of April II, 1G82, to the bishops who formed the Assembly of the French clergy' which adopted the four articles. Gallicanism having received its due share of flagella- tion, Liberalism next came up for sentence. ' Liberalism,' said the Jesuit preacher, ' is a so-called generosity to- wards error; it is a readiness to yield on the score of principles. Liberal Catholics grant to the State the right of requiring that parishes, bishoprics, and religious orders be civilly incorporated, as a condition of their having the right to hold property. They grant that the State has a right to limit the possessions of the Church ; to make laws for regulating the administration of Church property. They grant to the State the right of taking possession of Church property and keeping it ; thus sanctioning the principle of communism. Speak to these sacrilegious usurpers of restitution : their only an- swer will be a sneer. Liberal Catholics pretend that the State can prescribe the form of marriage, define invalidat- ing impediments, and pronounce upon the conjugal ties in matrimonial causes. Liberal Catholics confide to the State the superintendence and direction of primary schools, to the detriment of the Church and fathers of families They grant to the State the rights of intervening in the erection of parishes, independently of any authorization of the Holy See.' H ^ P i ^H 1 I^H i : ;'r 178 ROME IN CANADA. Bl-.-' These errors, Father liraiin decKxred, wore gaii.iii;^ ground in the country ; were causing tlie Cliurch to los*; its independence, and threatening ere long * to place her on the same level as the so-called Church created by Henry VIII. All these fatal errors,' he emphatically de- clared, ' must be fcnight against : the State must be entire- ly subordinated to the Church,' must give its civil sanc- tion to the decrees of the Church, and defend and enforce all her claims, both civil and spiritual. The Provincial Council of Quebec, he volunteered the information, had decided * that apostolic constitutions, once published in Rome, become binding in this country.' Government did not concur in the erection of parishes: it simply legislated on the civil effects of their canonic erection by the Church. Before closing, the preacher passed a strong eulogy on Bishop Bourget, the leader of the Ultramonlanes in Canada, at whose golden wedding his hearers had come to rejoice, and reiterated the assertion of the complete in- dependence of the Church, coupled with the absolute sub- ordination of the State thereto.* This declaration of war created indignation and con- sternation among such i " '^he clergy and bishops as it was directed against. The attack was to be promptly followed up till victory was won. Archbishop Baillargeon of Quebec found himself in sympathy with the Bishop of Orleans, when the latter wrote his celebrated letter on the Vatican Council. Of this letter the author caused to be sent a MS. copy to the Archbishop of Quebec, with the words ecrit de sa main. This letter the Archbishop caused to be printed and distri- buted among his clergy, in the beginning of the year 1868. The ' dangerous doctrines ' contained in this letter did not escape the vigilant eye of the emissaries of a foreign ♦ The Witness, Montreal. self in e latter il. Of to the n viain. 1 distri- ir i('^'')8. tter did foreign 77//-: ASSAi'LT O.V T//E O/./) /.lli/MT/l-.S. '77 power. An obscure jonrnai, the Gazitte ties Campagucs, was made the medimn of tlie censure. 'I'Mis paper was publislied under theauspiccsof the college of Ste. Anne ;"" and as tht; letter had been published by authority of the A.''chbisliop, the adverse comments, coming from Catlio- lics, seem to have been construed as a defiance of episco- pal authority. Vicar-General Cazeau, feeling it his duty to communicate the article to the Archbishop, who was then at Rome in attendance on the Vatican ("Council, first wrote to enquire whether it had been written with the consent oi the members of the corporation of the college ; if not, desiring that they might announce the fact in the same journal, or, if they preferred it, send the disavowal direct to him. They were reminded that they were re- quired to inculcate respect for their first pastor; and a hint was given that, it this were not done, changes in the persons in charge of the college might be made : a threat which was afterwards carried into effect. This sleepless surveillance belongs to the severity of ecclesiastical administration in the Roman Catholic Church under its most liberal phases, and t^nds to pre- vent criticism of any writing or opinion to which the stamp of episcopal approval has been given ; but the consequences are more seriout, ,vhen the only opinions allowed to be expressed arc those to be found in the Syllabus SLwdihe Vatican decrees. That M. Cazeau and the late Archbishop of Quebec were once liberal in the sense liberals were condemned by the Pope seems undeniable. The editor ol the Gazette was sure of an easy triumph. An appeal to Rome in favour of Infallibility, and against * At that time, the Rev. Alexis Pellctier was professor in the college of Ste. Anne (Abbr Tanguay) ; and there is little doubt that he svas ringleader in this attack. He had previously been professor in the University of Laval ; and h:.- carried away with him an undying antipathy to that seat of learning, which breaks out on every occa- sion. He has been a formidable ally of the Jesuits and Bishon Houvget in their at- tempts to discredit La\al and set up a Jesuit University in opposition at Montreal. 12 ^ikm '1 ■ J i 1 ^- i h . ', iM 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 J i 'J t ! ■ ■' . • ' ' 1 " i ' \ J , i i8o ROME IN CANADA. Bishop Dupanloup and his sympathizers, was certain to be successful ; and the placing of the sanctum of the Gazette des Cainpagnes above the throne of the Archbishop sliows what the press can do in the Province of Quebec, when it ranges itself on the side of Ultramontanism. The Bishop of Orleans published more letters ; and the Gazette des Campagues thundered new censures. The jfoiinial de Quebec, which in that particular phase of its existence got credit for speak-'ng the language of the Catholic liberals, was suspected of receiving the secret approbation of the Vicar-General; a suspicion which is laid to the charge of M. Cazoau as a crime.* The yournal claimed the right of believing or disbelieving in Papal infallibility. The visits of the editor to the Archi- episcopalpalacewerecarefully noted, andbecamethecause of great scandal; and Ultramontane spies observed that tliere was an established connection between these visits and each new vindication of Catholic Liberalism in the Journal. But time ever brings its changes ; and when Dupanloup had wheeled into line, why should a Canadian journalist be denied the privilege of repentance ? By steady persistence Rome gains her conquests in tlie domain of civil liberty. Near the close of iS6g and the beginning of 1870, the Ultramontanes gained an accession of advocates in the press. Abbe Jos. S. Martel, cure of Ste. JuUe de Som- nierset, and M. Routhier of Kamouraska, a lawyer, began to proclaim aloud the truth of the doctrines promulgated at Rome, the admission of which meant death to the old Gallicanism. By the light of the Syllabus, Abbe Martel discovered that the conditions under which public educa- tion was carried on were deplorable ; and, taking the ♦ n(M. Cazeau) encourager, au moin par une approbation tacite I'homme du Journal de Qtiibcc k]e &a\iT,(iunUe moiB durant, de toutes les injures et les calom- nies imaginables. 11 (the editor of tne Journal tU: Qutbec) soutenait qu'on etait libre d« croire on de ne pas croire ii rinfalibilitt' poi.tificale. — Abbe Pelletier, Lib. e! Gal. HE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. iSi canonist Bouix for a subordinate guide, he contended that the choice of masters and of books for public schools, purely secular in their character, belonged to the Church ; that the teachers should be 'profoundly Catholic,' and under the obligation of following the rules which the Church might lay down for their guidance, t- The only duty reserved to the State in this scheme, is obedience to the behests of the Church, whose decrees it should consi- der it a duty to execute. This may serve to give us some idea of the tenure by which the Protestant minority of Quebec hold their educational rights, and the circumstan- ces under which an attempt would be made to deprive them of guarantees of which Abbe Martel, adopting the doctrine of Bouix in all its rigour, thus early essayed the destruction. From a doctrine so startling as this, M. Chauveau. then Superintendent of Education, shrank with alarm, Vicar-General Cazeau resisted the innovation. The French Canadian press, though divided on the subject, generally refused assent. M. Routhier, the Kamouraska advocate, now a judge, contended for the right of the Church to take the absolute direction of the public schools. Episcopal encouragement of a doctrine so agreeable to Rome was not long wanting. Mgr. Birtha, who then exercised the functions of bishop at Montreal, in the absence of Mgr. Bourget, wrote a letter of encouraging congratulation to Abbe Martel and another to M. Rou- thier.| Vicar-Genex'al Cazeau, who represented the Arch- bishop in his absence, wrote to Mgr. Birtha to express \ Ainsi, says this canonist, dans rorgani;;ation des rcoles publiques, le pouvoir civil est trnu, quant a tout ce qui vient d'lte enumiro d'obtenir I'asKentiment du pouvoir ec^;ltsiastique, et il doit, en pareille maticre, lui laisser pleine libertr d'exercer la s.;rveillance, de prescrire ce qu'il ju^era convenable et de le faire executer. ; M. PinsonneaultjWhen he retired from the Bishopric of Sandwich, Canada West (Ontario), received the title of Mgr. de Birtha. To the late Bishop of M^ntre-il all the leading Ultramontanes were attracted by an irresistible afTmity. '1 41 n !i '^ r \M il'!^ l82 ROME IN CANADA. ' « lllilr * his disapprobation of the countenance the latter had given to these innovators.* He was anxious to prevent all dis- cussion of the subject ; and one of his complaints was that M. Routhier had written in the journals in contempt of ecclesiastical authority, so little latitude of freedom do the most liberal Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in Que- bec give to laymen. Mgr. de Birtha, in reply, recalled the fact that the Pope had ofcen encouraged journalists who, like Louis Veuillot, had placed their pens at the service of the Church ; and he could find no words buffi- ciently strong to land ' the brave cunV who had so valiantly combatted tae encroachments of the laity in the direction of education. As for himself, he had only done what the Provincial Councils and the Pope, in various encylicals, had ordered to be done. The Pope had, in the previous January, in writing to the editor of a Rio Janeiro journal, incited him to 'cry aloud, to sound the trumpet,' as 'Catholic journalism is one of the most efifi- cacious means of dissipating error.' After fortifying him- self with this quotation from infallible authority, Mgr. de Birtha, addressing M. Cazeau, says : 'And you, my dear Vicar-General, you say to the Catholic journalism of Que- bec : Silence, silence ; no discussion ; ' and this by way of prudence. These Ultramontane writers express inet- fable contempt for everything that at all savours of pru- dence. The Abbe Pelletier now claimed to have convicted Vicar-General Cazeau of the double crime of Gallicanisni and Liberalism. The orthodoxy of the views expressed by M. Routhier was guaranteed by this priest : they had *the merit of being qualified as Ultramontane, in opposi- tion to those called Galilean and Liberal.' ' We have there- fore,' exclaimed Pelletier, ' from the hand of Vicar- * In this letter the Vicar-General said : J'ai regrette de voir un evrque venir Jcnner sa sanction ;i tout cela, et je n'ai pu empr'cher de trouver sa demarche intempestiv e. THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 183 General Cazeau an authentic document attesting tliat at Quebec,' in the palace of the Archbishop, ' profession is made of Gallicanism and Liberalism..' The Gallicanism which had a vigorous existence at Quebec six years ago is now silent as the tomb. Is it dead beyond tlie possibility of recovery ? The college of Ste. Anne became a hotbed in which the new opinions were forced. In the summer of 1870 the Archbishop of Quebec resolved upon the removal of all the teachers, and formally addressed them a letter to that effect. They refused submission, and threatened to appeal ""o Rome. Called upon to disavow the aiithor- ship of the articles in the Gazette des Campagncs, they replied, Jesuitically, that they regretted whatever had appeared in that journal which could reasonably offend the Archbishop. The or-^an of the Archbishop simulated satisfaction with an answer which was the reverse of satisfactory. So obnoxious were the new opniions that M. Cazeau did what he could to prevent their expression in the press. He is said to have succeeded, for a long time, in imposin^^ silence on the Conryier du Canada, and to have discouraged to the utmost of his power the cir- culation of the NoHveau Monde, an Ultramontane journal, sjt up at the instance of the Bishop of Montreal. In the nomination of curi's, it was charged against him that he favoured the old Galileans and discouraged the new opinions ; that he retained in high positions the Abbi* Chandonnet, who shared his liberal views ahd defendefl them ; while Ultramontane priests sometimes sought a refuge in expatriation from the vexation caused by what they considered a want of appreciation of their merits. The malice of his enemies charged that he sent M. Prou'x to Beauce, as to a penal colony. Between him and the Ger- man Jesuit Braiin, notorious for the extravagance of his Ultramontane views, there could be no sympathy. This n i1 ) : ■i ■»' 184 ROME IN CANADA. Jesuit found a natural ally in Bishop Bourget ; and he found his true place when, leaving Quebec, he took up his residence in Montreal. If M. Cazeau had not made him specially welcome in the ancient capital, the fact should redound to the credit of a Canadian ot the old school, and not be invoked against him. Nor do the writers of the New School confine their attacks to ecclesiastics of the Old School. Whenever a case comes before the courts m which Ultramontane pre- tensions have to be passed on, the judge becomes the target of attack. He is accused of partiality, of indulging forbidden sympathies, of holding the scales of justice un- (;venly. When Judge Mondelet, during the hearing of the Guibord case, became the target of these attacks, he said in open court : ' I have been calumniated, but happily I am above calumny ; ' and he pointed out the evils that would result from the success of like efforts to destroy public confidence in the partiality of our judges : ' It would be a thousand times better,' he said, 'to have nei- ther judges nor tribunals, to suffer the loss of our consti- tution, to be condemned to helotism, rather than see the people lose confidence in the tribunals ; for, ii these were once abolished, the rrginic of carbines and bayonets would commence.' During, the course of the trial, he stated that he had received certain indirect admonitions, and he indicated that an appeal had been made to th^e Government in the hope of inducing it to make a' attack upon his mdependei ce, an appeal which he justly char- acterizes as an insult to the Executive, which must have been thought, by those making it, to be capable of so un- wor<-hy an act. This attack on the independence of the judge he regards as indicating the sort o{ regime which the New School would place us under, if it had the power. Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto, came, in turn, under THE ASSAULT ON THE OLD LIBERTIES. 185 the fire of the Ultramontane skirmishers of the Provincv"? of Quebec. He had pubHcly stated* that in Ontario the priests are lorbiddento turn the altar into a tribune from which to deliver political harangues or to menace elec- tors on account of the votes they may give at political elections ; though they might instruct their parishioners in their duty to vote for the candidate whom they believe best capable of advancing the interests of the country. Several Ultramontane journals, published in the French language, expressed strong objections to this mode of managing matters. They reproduced thejoint instructions of the Bishop of Quebec authorizing the priests to de- nounce the censures of the Church against electors who refused to vote as directed by their spiritual advisers. Among the critics of Archbishop Lynch's letter who argued the existence of unity on the strength of this difference, the Conrricr dn Canada was prominent. f And the Conrrier was not long in receiving its reward. Before the end of April, it obtained from the Pope a mark of distinction which is usually reserved for writers who are in special favour at the Vatican. The Courrier an- nounces that: ' Our Holy Father the Pope has accorded to us, in our quality of Catholic journalist, the apostolic benediction for us and our family to the third generation, with permission to read the books in the Index without exception.' The Rev. Alexis Pelletier, ranking Archbishop Lynch with the ecclesiastics of Quebec on whom the viols of his wrath had recently been poured, turned his arms for a mo- ment, as if by way of warning, against the chief ecclesiasti- cal dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church in Ontario. A pamphlet written by him under the name oi Lihemlisnie,l elaborates, at great length, the views of Bishop Bourget. * Letter to the Hon. A. Mackenzie, Jan., 1876. + Feb. 2, 1876, and subsequent issues. + Coup D'Oeil sur ie LibiTaliome European et sur LibOralisme Canadien. tm I' 1 ! i J liili i86 ROME IN CANADA. 1- ■■ I (L. In an article in Le Franc -Parleur, this writer, under his well-known nom de guerre, gave Archbishop Lynch a first warning. ' It is evidently impossible,' he says, 'to discover the slightest trait of resemblance between the Catholic Liberal, which Pius IX. has painted for us and that which Mgr. of Toronto shows us. Now the infallible doctor cannot err, and it is he to whom we must listen. When he raises the cry of alarm the danger is really where he signals it, and ic is such as he sees it to be.' It is evident from these indications that the turn of the Archbishop of Toronto had come. His assailants have, so far, succeeded in silencing every one in the Canadian Church whom they have attacked. But Archbishop Lynch Avould be in a measure protected by the barrier of a language foreign to the people with whom he has to deal. Still, his critics would fail in the faculty of invention for which they have hitherto been remarkable, and in tlie persistency with which they have invariably followed up their attacks, should they not find some means of making Archbishop Lynch exceedingly uncomfortable, or reduc- ing him to that silence which they have imposed on so many others. It is a noteworthy coincidence that, soon alter the appearance of this criticism, the Archbishop ceased to favour the public with his viev/s on these ques- tions, which had been given in a non-official shape, as a correspondent of a public journal, in which capacity, the complaint was made, his words could not be taken as those of a bishop. The bishops of Quebec never interfere to check the violence of the clergy when it is directed against the com- mon enemy, against the liberty of electors, against the rights of the civil authority. A priest ma}' preach and teach that civil laws are to be disregarded, if the Church pronounces against them, with the absolute certainty of receiving episcopal approval. IX. CATHOLIC LIBERALISM. (;• 1 It is no part of my plan to attempt to solve the ques- tion : ' What is CathoHc LiberaHsm ; is i rehgious or political, or partly religious and partly political ? ' Nor does it matter whether Catholic Liberalism has been dogmatically defined, as some contend, or not, as Dr. De Angelis affirms. Wliat is important to know is in what way the bishops, the priests, and the clerical press of the Province of Quebec treat the ques- tion ; for what they say will be believed by a majority ol those whom they are in a position to influence, and the terrorism of pastoral letters, political sermons, and decla- mations of the press will produce a deep impression on the minds of the Roman Catholic laity. It is the custom of the Ultramontane writers to treat Catholic Liberalism as the synonym of Gallicanism. There may be some resemblance between the two, but they certainly are not identical. Article seventy-seven of the Syllabus stigmatizes as Liberalism the toleration of other modes of worship than that of the Romish Church ; and the next article denies that it is a wise provision of the law to allow persons who take up their residence in Catholic countries to enjoy the public exercise of their own worship. Article seventy-nine denounces the civil liberty of every mode of worship as of corrupt and im- moral tendency, which leads to the propagation of indifferentism. Whether this be a dogmatic definition or not, it is cer- tainly not identical with the principles of Gallicanism, ! ' I ! il 1 '■ ; .^^' ROME IN CANADA. 'if rj- I'l which, whcatever their merits, did not object to the national Church being the only tolerated Church in the State. Neither in Canada nor in Louisiana was any other reli- gion tolerated under the French rule. The fifth Provincial Council of Quebec compares Catholic Liberalism to the serpent that crawled in the Garden of Eden, when it sought to compass the downfall of the human race. But this hackneyed figure, which constantly appears in this kind of literature, hideous and repulsive as it is,' does not contain a definition. One of the objects ot this error, we are told, is to alter the con- stitution of the Church, and to break the ties which unite the people to the bishops and. the bishops to the Vicar of Christ. This statement involves the definition of the limits between the civil and the ecclesiastical power. This the present Archbishop of Quebec, Mgr. Taschereau, in promulgating the decrees of the fifth Provincial Council, admits, and he contends tliat the Church alone has the power to decide. And this doctrine every Roman Catholic is commanded to hold and proclaim, in journal, book, and pulpit. The term ' Catholic writers ' is defined by the Council as including those who treat on politics as well as on religion. ' Pretended Catholics,' says the Archbishop, 'who in the meantime call themselves Liberals, are more danger- ous than declared enemies,' because, whether they intend it Or not, they favour those who design the destruction of the Church. There is about them an appearance of pro- bity and sound doctrine which deceive honest men.' When, as happens in this case, the word Liberal is imperfectly qualified, the bias oi a party writer has no difficulty in treating it as a disapproval of Liberalism, pure and simple. The eight bishops of Quebec unite in telling the faith- ful* that Catholic Liberal) sm, according to * Pius IX., ♦ Lettre Pastorale, 22 Sept., 1875. CATHOLIC LIBERALISM. 1 89 is the most incensed and the most dangerous enemy of the divine constitution of the Church.' And the Pope has since, in a brief, approved of that letter. After alhid- ing to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the bishops add : ' It tries to ghde imperceptibly in the most holy places ; it fascinates the eyes of the most clear-seeing ; it poisons the hearts ot the most simple, that they may change their faith in the authority ot the most sovereign Pontiff." The partisans of this error, we read further, ' applaud the civil power wherever it invades the sanctuary ; they attempt by every means to induce the laithful to tolerate, if not approve, iniquitous laws. Enemies the more dan- gerous, because they often, without even being aware of it (sans mOme en avoir la conscience), favour the most perverse doctrines, which Pius IX. Jias so well character- ized in calling them ' a chimerical ccjnciliation between truth and error.' 'The Catholic Liberal is reassured by the fact that he still possesses certain Catholic principles, certain pious practices, a certain fund of faith and of attachment to the Church, but he carefully closes his eyes to the abyss which enor has scooped in his heart, and by which he is silently devoured. He still vaunts, to all comers, his religious convictions, an^^ is dispii,ased when he is told that he has embraced d ,erous principles ; he is perhaps sincere in his blindness. Cod only knows! But side b)' side with these fair appearances, there is a large stock of pride, which ciuses him to believe that he has more prudence and sagacity than those to whom the Holy Ghost has given the mission and the grace to teach and govern the faithful : he is seen to censure without scruple the acts and documents of the highest religious authority. Under pretext of taking away causes of dissension, and reconciling the Gospel to the actual progress of society, U ! !- J; \4 I go ROME IN CANADA. he enters the service of Crrsar and of those who invent pretended rights in favour of a false Hberty : as if Hght and darkness could exist together, and as if truth ceased to be truth when violence had been done to it, by taking away its true meaning and despoiling tlie immutability inherent in its nature.' The bi diops conclude by saying : ' In presence of five apostolic briefs denouncing Catholic Liberalism as abso- lutely incompatible with the doctrine of the Church, though it has not yet been formally condemned as a heresy, it is no longer permitted in conscience to be a Liberal Catholic' In the muffled sound of these words are conveyed to us with sufficient distinctness the idea, ever dear to the Church, of reaction, and a determination to sui)prcss all independent opinions and action, even in the sphere of legislation. The joint letter of the Episcopate of Quebec was thought by Bishop Bourget to require to be supplemented by a pastoral of his own.* This bishop, as is his manner, dealt with the subject in a more pronounced way than his colleagues had done. ' Catholic Liberalism,' he defines to be ' a body of social and religious doctrines which tend to free, more or less, minds of the speculative order, and citizens in the practical order, from rules Avhich tradition had everywhere imposed upon them.' In answer to the questions, ' What is Catholic Liberalism ? What is Liberal Catholicism ? ' he replies : ' It is a false and dangerous sentiment ; it is a party rising up and in fact conspiring against the Church and civil society. A Catholic Liberal is a man who participates, in any degree whatever, in this sentiment, or with this party, or in this doctrine, who is sick in proportion as he is liberal, and healthy in proportion as he is ♦Feb. I, 1876. CATHOLIC LIBERALISM. 191 Catholic. Liberalism tends always to subordinate the rights of the Church to the rights of the State, by prudent and sagacious means, and even to separate the Church from the State, desiring to have a free Church in a free State. 'f Liberalism contends that the clergy alone is called upon to defend religion, and that this mission has not been consigned to laymen ; while the Pope declares, in his encyclical of 1S53, that laymen, in taking this part, perform a filial duty from the nuMiicnt that they combat under the direction ol the clergy. Modern Liberalism pretends that religion ought to be confined to the sacristy, and not go beyond the limits oi l)rivate life. But the Pope declares that Catholics can effectually defend their rights and their liberties only b}' taking part in all public affairs.' By these characteristic traits, Bishop Bourget assures us, Catholic Liberalism may be known. But he still thinks it necessary further to heighten the colour of the picture, in whicii Liberalism is made to stand forth as ' nothing else than the demon which, hidden under the form of the ancient serpent, and armed with its rage, its malice, and its ruse, is found in our midst attempting our destruction.' But no cobra, no co'pper-liead, no boa con- strictor, 'is half so dangerous as the serpent Liberalism.' It is a serpent ' a thousand times more dangerous than all the other serpents in the world, because it poisons souls.' As a means of avoiding the evils of Liberalism, each one of the faithful is instructed to say in the inmost recesses of his soul: ' 1 hear my cun' ; my cure hears the bishop; the bishop huars the Pope ; the Pope hears our Saviour Jesus Christ, by whom he is assisted by tiic Divine Spirit to render him infallible in the teaching and government of his Church.' Dr. De Angelis, who was called upon to pronounce an t This is the expression of Civour. 1 \i l] • i ■ < ,1 I fflrf V- I ■ I , I9t ROME IN CANADA. opinion on this pastoral, does not admit that iVIgr. Bour- get intended to proclaim the infallibihty of the bishops and the cnr<'S. What Dc Anf,'eUs meant, if he had thought it prudent to be more outspoken, no doubt was that such a claim could not be allowed. That the bishop meant no less than this, wliat he went on to add seems to leave no doubt. The priests, his argument was, had merely reproduced the instructions given by the Pope and the bishops against Liberalis... • It is therefore,' said the bishop, ' the whole clergy who speak by the mouth of each of its ministers. Thus dis;espect aliown to this organ of the clergy is disrespect for the whole clergy ; it is disrespect of Jesus Christ, whose ambassa- dors they are ; it is disrespect of the Eternal Father.' ' But what are we to think,' the bishop goes oti to ask. of those who, on the hustings, at the polls, in the tri- bune or in the press, dare to make disrespectful allusions o the person or the character of the priest, to regard with disrespect or cause others to regard with disrespect liis word and his conduct, with a view of depriving him, if possible, of the esteem and consideration which he eu joys among the people, and how ought they to be treated ? ' The answer was, in effect, that such conduct properly in- curred the lesser excommunication. The bishops, in their joint letter, and Bishop Bourget in his separate pastoral, tell us that the superstructures they respectively raised have for their base the several apostolic briefs in which Pius IX. has denounced Catho- lic Liberalism, and to which another specially relating to Canada has since been added. But, if we turn to these documents, we shall find that the nuance in which the question is enveloped does not entirely clear away. The truth seems to be that, in the absence of a dogmatic defi- nition, much latitude is allowed in the definition of Catho- lic Liberalism. The Pope, in receiving a deputation of '■i \ M : 1 CATHOLIC LIliERALISM. >os ! French Catholics on tho twenty-fifth anniversary of Iiis Pontilicatc, said: ' What affects your country and pre- vents it meriting the benedictions of heaven is a tuiimii^e of principles. Wiiat I fear is not the wretches of the Commune of Paris, true demons of hell, wIkj walk about on the face of the earth. No, it is not that ; what I fear is this miserable policy of Catholic Liberalism, which is the real scourge.' According to a brief of July 28,1873, the condemned opinions are sometimes held by honest and pious Catho- lics. ' Liberal opinions,' we read in this brief, ' are ac- cepted by many honest and pious Catholics, whose reli- gion and authority easily draw men's minds towards them and incline them towards very pernicious oi)inions.' When there is ni want of piety the fault would seem to lay in the politics ; not the politics of any particular party, but the politics of all parties which are opposed to reaction and sacerdotalism. Abbt! Paquet bids us seek the definition of Liberalism in the Encyclical of 1864 ; * that immortal monument of the wisdom, penetration, zeal, and courage of Pius IX.'* In the Syllabus of errors accompanying the Encyclical, Pius IX. denounced Liberalism. t The occasions which gave rise to these propositions being characterized as errors may here be recalled. In * Le Libt'ralisme. \ Article 77. ' In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic reli- fiion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship. 78. ' Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholici that persons cominK to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship. 79. ' Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every mode of worship, and the full power given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting their opinions and ideas, of all kinds whatsoever, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the peo- ple, and to the propagation of the pest of indifferentism. 80. 'The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself to, and agree with, progress, liberalism, and civilization as lately introduced,' I. m :f|ii ■m 194 ROME IN CANADA. 1851, Pius IX. entered into a concordat with the King ol Spain, which stipulated, among other things, that the Roman Catholic religion should be the only religion of the Spanish nation, to the exclusion oi every other form of worship, and that this religion should enjoy all tlie prerogatives accorded to it by the canons ; that in all the schook of Spain the teachinj; should be entirely conform- able to the Roman doctrine ; above all, that the bishops, in the exercise of their episcopal fun-^.tions, as well as in whatever relates to the rights and the exercise of eccle- siastical authority, should enjoy the full libeny with which the canons invest them ; that the Church might acquire additional property in whatever way it could (a qnclque titrc qi'c cc soit), and that the rights and property of the Ch'\rch shouia be inviolable. In this world of mutable things and ever varying opinion, it was not strange that a change came over the Government of Spain ; a change expressed in terms which negatived the stipulations of the concordat by the asser- tion that, in the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only reli- giv n ol the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship. The Spanish Government went still farther: it decreed the sale of ecclesiastical property, forbade the bishops to confer sacred orders, and passed other laws of a similar tendency. The questions thus dealt with were not exclusively reli- gious : they were politico-religious. The annulling of the concordat was made a subject of complaint by the Pope; but concordats, being human things, are not eternal, and the Court of Rome has not hesitated to abrogate a con- cordat when its interest lay in so doing, Pius IV., to quote an example, annulled the concordat with France, on the ground that it was too favourable to the nation, as represented by the king. And it was not till the Pope ] I CATHOLIC LIBERALISM. '95 was made to feel the inconvenience of being deprived ol the annates and the revival of the Pragmatic Sanction, that he consented to renew the concordat in 1562.* One of the most unpopular things done by the Government of the Restoration was the new concordat into which it entered in 1817. It was regarded as anti-national, and de- structive of the liberties of the national Church. The p(jpu- lar feeling was so strong and so unanimous that ministers soon ceased to defend the act they had advised ; and the publication of the Pope's bull lounded on the concordat, and making a new division of the dioceses, increased tlie pub- lic indignation. t A Government with Ultramontane lean- ings may sometimes agree to a concordat which it is im- possible long to maintain. The history of the seventy-eighth article of the Sylla- bus is this : The Government of New Grenada, in 1854, pi'omulgated a law by which priests and bishops who had been convicted of crime by a lay tribunal were forbidden to continue to exercise ecclesiastical functicjus, and their charges were to pass into other hands. Gregory XVi. protested, but protested in vain. Two additional laws were proposed, one for the abolition of tithes, the other to guarantee to immigrants coming from every country the public exercise of their religion. Pius IX. protested, but without effect. The ball kept rolling: the suppres- sion of religious orders was decreed, the expulsion of the Jesuits confirmed, the ecclesiastical law of Rome abolish- ed. Bishops and archbishops were made amenable to lay tribunals, and the choice of priests was vested in the parishioners. Unrestricted freedom of discussion was legalized. The clergy, resisting the law, suffered the penalty of disobedience. In these acts, Abbe Paquet tells us, is to be found that modern Liberalism which Pius JX. ♦ Abbe Millot. Histoire de France. + Leonard Gallois. Histoire de France. 13 ^M \\. 1 i »n igG ROME IN CANADA denounv^ed in article seventy-eight of the Syllabus. Most of these acts were politico-religions ; that which legalized free discussion was purely political. The seventy-ninth article of the Syllabus was a protest agairist the proclamation of the freedom of won^hip and the free expression of opinion by the Spanish Govern- ment, and the restrictions under which the bishops were placed not to cause tiie publication of their pastorals in the churches. There were non-juring bishops, who showed tliat the\' were not of the nation in wliich they lived by refusing, at the bidding of the Pope, to take an oath of fidelity to the Republican constitution. And if they had taken the oath, what guarantee would there have been that the Pope would not, under the circum- stances, have ass^i'.ncd to release them from its obligation ? Such things have been done, even in Canada. This is a weighty ciiarge, not to be -redited on doubtful evidence. The evidence is not douiitful, admits of no doubt. The authority is contained in the permission given by Pope Urban \'1II. to the Provincial of the Recollets of Paris, March 25, 1635. with power to communicate it to the missionaries that might be sent to Canada.* It is true that this authority was to be exercised only for just cause ; but of what constituted a valid cause the ecclesiastic must be the judge. If to forbid or permit the free exercise of worship has its religious side, it is not the less a matter of civil right ; while freedom of discussion may be political or religious, according to the nature of the subject discussed. It follows that in condemning modern Liberalism, the Pope ' Kelaxandi juramentaob instas causas Communicandi has facultates in toto vel in pa: e Vicario seu viceprtefecto, ac alys missionary's ejusdem orainis ad Canadam Amerijse Septentrinnalis Provir.ciam :ransmissis, et ab eodem Provin- ciali ejusque definitoris, cum scitu, et consensu Nuty [NuntiJ Galliarum approbante transmittendis et concessas revocandi toties quoties opus fuerit.— See the doou- raent in Sagard llistoire dti Canada, Paris 1636. 'i ] CATHOLIC LIBERALISM. lor included in his catalojTue of errors political as well as religious matters. The Pope, after the loss of his civil power, was advised to reconcile himself with modern progress, Liberalism, and civilization. The eighteenth article of the Syllabus con- tains his answer to the invitation. The Pope was asked to place himself in accord with three things, and the demand that he should do so he stigmatized as an error of modern Liberalism. Modern progress and civilization include political amelioration, and by no fair rule of inter- pretation can the}' be assumed to have an exclusively religious aspect. After years of dispute, in which rivers of ink had been shed and tons of paper polluted, Pope Pius IX. issued a brief. September iS, 1S76, which was intended to put an end to the conflict. It was addressed to the Bishop of Three Rivers, and has been communicated by otlier bishops, presumably the whole of them, to the clergy ot their respective dioceses, in this brief, Pius IX, applauds the zeal with which the bishops of Quebec, in the joint l<;tter, warned the people against the errors of ' Liberal- ism called Catholic." The effect of this is to adopt what thev said under this head. What that is we have already seen. Mgr. Birtha g'ves a definition of the question which it is not easy to reject, when he describes Catholic Lib- eralism as politico-religious. I ' Who does not see,' says this ecclesiastic. ' that it is necessary, at whatever cost, to unveil and combat the enterprise of those wlio desire to forma political party, in direct opposition to the teach- ings of the Pope, whose special mission seems to be to i.nmask and destroy this dangerous sect of Catholic Liber- a s ? What frightful evils has not this sect, filled with the cunnmg and imposture of the ancient serpent, brought I Lettres A un deputi-. ^98 ROME IN CANADA. "P" upon the Catholic kingdoms of Europe ? Shall we un- dergo a like late ? Yes, without doubt, if we do not com- bat this insidious sect, wherever it dares to raise its head.' If Bishop Pinsonneault did not assist in framing tlie de- cree of the fifth Provincial Council in which Catholic Liberahsm is condemned, he may be allowed to be a capable expositor of the language emi Joyed by his col- leagues in the Episcopate. Practically, his is the inter- pretation which tile term Catholic Lil)eral receives in Quebec. The result is, that the Church has taken the field on the side of political reaction, and as its teaching claims an infallible origin, there is danger that nearly tlie whole political power of the Province will soon be wield- ed by a clerical army. With the opposition which such a line of conduct has begun to invoke has come the opening battle in the inevitable conflict which has been predicted. The first clash of arms has been heard in the stern chal- lenge which the exercise of undue clerical influence over elections has met in the courts. On .'inother occasion-^- Bishop Pinsonneault said: ' The Catholic Liberal professes to believe the true faith, the same as other Catholics ; but while believing the Catho- lic dogma, he absolutely rejects the intervention of the Church in human concerns. He does not wish that the priest should occupy himself with temporal affairs. He is willing to tolerate the Church so long as it confines it- self to the temple and the sacristy. He wishes to restrain it from expressing itself on questions which belong to human politics. Therefore the Catholic Liberal excludes God from civil affairs. It is an error condemned by the Popes and the Councils. Liberalism being an error, those who declare themselves Liberals ought not to be Analyse du sermon de Sa Grandeur Monseigneur A Pinsonneault, Eveque de Birtha, prononce dans J'Eglise deSt. Henri des Tannene.-,Dimanclie,le 4 Juillct, iS;5. CATHOLIC LinERALIS}f. 199. followed or encouraged. What,' he asks, • is the remedy for the evils of which Liberalism is the cause ?' And he answers tliat. ' since the Liberal idea is an idea of revolt, obedience IS the only means to prevent its proving con- tagious ; ■ and that that obedience is due 'to the author- ity established b)' God, the Church.' The statement of Bishop Pinsonneaultthat die Catholic Liberal absolutely rejects the intervention of the priest in human affairs is, like most ot the statements which come to us with the flavour of infallibility, gross exaggera- tion. There are many human affairs which are not poli- tical : and though the Catholic Liberal denies to the priest the right to interfere in parliamentary elections with his spiritual authority and spiritual censures, no one denies that the priest, as a citizen, is at liberty to exercise his political rights. As speak the bishops, so speaks the priest. In theloUow- ingstrain ALO'Donnell berates 'theapostlesof modern civ- ilization: 't 'Yourcivilization reposes on a principle at once false, destructive, detestable. You desire to form the child in the pattern of your own heart and intelligence — to rob it of its faith, its soul, its God^and turn it into a brute. For you matrimony is a thing which the first ca- price may rupture. You desire the destruction of the fam- ily. " No connection," you cry, " between the Church and the State, between the spiritual and the temporal ; "'and it is for the purpose ot loading the Church with chains, and rendering it the slave of the civil power, that you an- nounce the monstrous error. Not only do you wish that God should be a stranger in the State, but that the State should serve as the pedestal for the satellites of Satan. Anarchy, intellectual, moral, and religious, seems to you thefittingcomplement of these diabolical doctrines. Your \ Sermon prononct- par M. O'Donnel! u I'occasion du sacre de Sa Grandeur Mgr Moreau, 1876. ii! 'ij 1 J ::!J^ ! I ! '■ ■i :l m ■^1 .am 200 ROME I\' CANADA. liberty of the jiress is the oppression of the mind and the heart, its weapons lies and immorality; liberty of con- science is ecpial liberty for +i-nth and error; liberty nf speech is anarchy, license, the rir,dit of rebellion, and y')nr political liberalism is the lil)eral theory of the relation which the Chnrch and State shonld bear to one another. Father O'Donnell's picture of modern civilisation is a caricature, or an invention, painted unlike the reality, for the purpose of makinj^ his subject hateful. A sermon preached on the occasion of the consecration of a bishop would miss its mark if it contained n(jLhin;,f on the subject of the episcopal function. Father O'Don- nell did not forget the principal part he was required to play. The bishop's mission, m the direction ot consci- ences, ho described as all pervading ; it extended to the whole man : 'his heart, mind, will, his civil, religious, antl domestic duties.' Could there be a more melancholy ])ic- ture of a slave than a man thus liandaged by episcopal cords? If the duty of directing consciences extends so far, and were so far practically extended, the minds of the faithful would have room for nothing but the impression made upon them in the confessional ; and the power of the Church would be supreme, in the ci\il as well as in the ecclesiastical domain. Rome would then become an universal monarchy, all divested though she is of ' the patrimony of St. Peter.' Is it surprising that such pretensions as these should fill men's minds with alarm, and that the alarm should be raised that a great contest between Ultramontanisni and the civil power is at hand ? Much of the evidence adduced by Ultramontane wri- ters to prove that Vicar-General Raymond was a Liberal Catholic, guilty of the high crime of Gallicanism, is utter- ly worthless. If he abstained from quoting Ultramon- tane writers, such as Veuillot, Morel, Maupied, Keller, CATHOLIC LIIiERALISM. 201 it was held to be proof tliat he did not share their opin- ions. And if he (hd not write aj^ainst the doctrines of the Univers or Mgr. de Tnlle, private conversations — snch is tlie system of espiona|,'e in vof(ue — in which he spoke afjainst them were not lield sacrech Where the Pope had given his l)lessnig, as in the case of Louis VeniUot. the Vicar-General was not at liberty to refuse his achniration. So jiis r.ssailants concluded. Under pressure o^ the attacks of which lie became the victim, there came a time when M. Raymond was obliged to deny the charge of Liberal Catholicism. He could not afford to be under the reproach that he bekjuged to a class of men whom the Pope had described as hav- ing infiicted greater injuries on French society than the Commune of Paris. ' When, the indictment against him ran, ' he preached lil)erty of consci'^nce, coiniiif fait, when he strove to calm the fears which the perils of Gal- licanism and Catholic Liberalism had excited, he grievous- ly pained Catholic Canada."- He protested his attach- ment to Roman doctrines ; but this, his enemies said, was acommon refuge of Catholic Liberalism. Montalem- bert had admitted that Gallicanism had long been hope- lessly dead, so utterly extinct that, in 1844, it would not have been possiole to find, in all France, four bishops who would have signed the four articles of 1682 ; and yet withal Montalembert had the sin. of Gallicanism on his head. Vicar-General Raymond denied the existence of Liberalism in Canada,! proclaimed aloud his abhor- rence of the ' perfidious error ;" but he did not the less 41 1 ! .. . ill ,;!i!!i * f ! >' ■ ; / * Binan. i And for this avowal, in due time, came his fitting reward. On the 21st of July 1876, the Pope, by an apostolic rescript, appointed him domestic prelate of his house. The honour is for him ; the conquest may not the less be for the Ultramontanps who drove him to this confession. Abbi' Pelletier says; Le St. Office, d'apn's les explica- tions qui lui furent longuement donn^es par M. i'abbt- Raymond sur sa lecture inti- tul*e : ' L'action de Marie dans la SocieU,' s'est abstenu de la mal noter. 202 ROME IN CANADA. teach Liberal floclrmes in his lectures, for though he con- demned liberty of conscience, coniiiie droit, he defended it, comnie/ail. Therefore, in the eyes of the Pope he was worse than the Con-imnnists of Poris. W'licn the Pope pronounced against hberty of conscience, no good Catho- lic is at liberty to speak in its favour. Such are the doctrines of the Ultramontane writers of Quebec in the preser. day. To state them is of itself sufticicMit to excite horror and execration. If the Encyclical Quanta Cum, which condemned the so-called errors contained in the Syllabus, left the Liberal Catholics no standing ground, it did not, as M. Raymond found it jirudc'it to say, at (jnce bring the submission of all Canadian Catholics;* but the peril of speaking against it is exemplified in the fate of Lc Pays, of INIontreal, to which it proved so serious a sin as to cost it its life. The submission may in man)- cases have amounted only to silence; a silence which did not at once become, if it is now, absolute and complete. • But," says the Vicar-General, ' as the state of men's minds would not permit the denial (iic pLrmct pas qn'ou toHcIif) of religious liberty (lihcrtc de ciiltcs), in certain States, without detrnnent to society and to the Church herself, it is permitted to tolerite. to defend, and to swear to observe, in the constitution, \/hich forms a fundamental law,t and ihat in virtue of the principle that the tolera- tion of an ordf;r of things or of evil, which under certain circumstances is to be feared, is permissibl'- 1. it l)e a good relatively Vi an opposite order o! things. "ij; The meaning of this is that it all depends upon the power of Rome to deny religious liberty to others ; and though the liberty which simply refrains from attempting * ^'ulle parole n'est elev/e de lerr part en opposition A cellf du Vicaire du Chubt i 'I'he Pope refused this ii the t.ire of Spai i. C.\riIOLlC J.IIiERALISM. 203 what tliere are no means of acconiplisliinf; is not very deep, its assertion proved hi{;hly offensive to the latter day Ultramontanes. One ot the V'icar-Gencral's antaf^unists§ argues: ' It is vain to say that, in Canada, we are ohlij^ed to toU^rate the hberty of worship ; that it is to this hherty we owe our Cathohc t'rancliises: we reply that there is an enor- mous difference between tolci'atiu<:; and difciidin^ an abuse. The Catholics are entitled to say : our Church is free because liberty of worship exists, but thai it is not ecpially permissible to grant libert)' of worsJiip to dissidents l)y invoking the liberty of tlie Catholic Church ; we further reply that the Catholic Ciiurch alone has the ri,i.'it to liberty, bt.cause she alone is in possession of tlie truth ; we reply hnally that if M. Raymond desires to remain within tlie bounds of trutii, and not fall into the error of theCatliolic Liberal, heoUi,dit to confine himself to t(\'ich- ing that it is allowable to tolerate, when it is impossible to do otherwise, liberty of worship, of conscience, ol speech, and of the press, but not to defend it ; tor to defend a thing is to recognize its riglits : but it is never allowable to recognize error, though it may be endowed with forces and powers that give it predominance. It this liberty cannot be restrained, it may be left in peace ; but though tolerated it must never be defendcMl, that is to say, catise made on its behalf. If it (error) proclaims liberty ot worship, and silences (('louffe) vou because you are Catholic, call, as is its constant habit, attention to the hberties she grants, even invoke them if necessary, but do not make tlie apotheosis of these liberties, that is to sa}-, do net defend them or make cause in their behalf ; tor, let us say once more that to defend is to recognize their rights, which they can possess only in proportion as they are devoted to the exclusive service of truth.' § Binan. Uroch. Anon. Montreal, 1872, 304 ROME IN CANADA. 11 'Hi A w.iiit ol cjindour is nut the vice of this dcteiulrr u| iiitoleiaiicc, There is ,'i ternhh and slartliii},f hankiiess in wliat he says. Tlii' rules of conduct he |)iescril)es may easily be recof^'ni/.ed as old i.imihars in actual experience. The dillc'rence is, that the oidinary chs,'^Miis(!S are thrown away, and the policy (jf I'ionic stands confessed in its most repulsive form. It is an advantage to be in possession of the i^rogramme, jnire and simple, o( the party in the Konian ('atholic Chinch wliicli, in the Province of (}ue- bee, has reduced tlie liberal and national element to silence. The Liberal School of h'rench (^lanadian Catholics was lairly represciUted by Vicar-General Raymond. His ilefence oi religious lilxnty, under the circumstances and conditions already stated— where it had long been in existence i;;iiigenious, and, all thingsconsidered. not lack- ing in a certain element oi courage. Ho found that, in man^' Slates, a large part of llie people profess what he considers false religions. The liberty they are i'>crinitted to exercise is held by the right (jf possession, and some- times by the right of the strongest ; and in spite of the errors which they {)rofess, hf charitably allcjws that the teaching of the divine morality had iKjt been entirel}' lost upon them, and that what they liave retained will aid in thcj conservation ot society. In this state of things, liberty to dissidents to worship God in their own way Vicar-General Kayinond allows t<; be a relative good. To proscribe them, imder a non- Catholic (lovernment, would be impossible; and under such Governments, the liberty of worship is altogether in favour of the Church, and the best thing it can do is to profit by it. Even in countries where the faithful are in a majo- rity, repression, besides being odious, would violate civil rights long since acquired, would bring about great disas- ( t ' h\ CATllOl.lC l.llil.RAl.lSM. -'«>5 ters, and would certainly increase the inmib'jr ofdissicltints from tlu! (lliurch dI' Koiik.- ; it would ti.uisuuitc into vio- jc'ut hatred t'celiiif^'s whicli do not j>osse.ss a rharacK.T uf pronounced hostility; it would retard or prevent c inver- sions which, in a stat(! of peace, would take- p'.ace; he- sides, it would !(!ad lo the persecution nf Rnuian ("atlio- lics in all countries where they are ft;el)le. For these reasons, tlie N'icar-Cicneral ari^'ucs, lilxrly ot worship ou},(Iit not to be disturbed where it lias alr< ady been established. ' No doubt,' his ortlu)d').\y (U'prudenco, or both c')nd)inL'd, .n.ake him add, this liberty ' is injurious to the sahation of souls;' but as lie did not i^Mioie tlu; tbrccs of existin.L,' society, he held t'ast to the conclusion that 'the attempt to put the opposite i)iincipl(; into prac- tice would be a ,L,M'cat evil, t herct'oi'e it ouj^dit not to be made.' \'icar-("ieueral Raymond lon;,^ represented Liie modera- tion, tiic caution, the wisdom of the old CaiKuban ScTioob He knew how to wait when action would hax-' bi.'en rashness; and to move, wiien it was jirudent to move, with caution. In mixiul questions, which have a civd as well as an ecclesiastical side, he knew the danger of woimcbiif^ the susceptibilities ot the citizens of another faith : and he was not willinj^ to press inopiiortunely doubt- ful points, at tlie risk oi a repulse or a defeat. With this temporizing and tolerating spirit, it is difficult to see why he was not as gooil a Catholic as the loudest brawler in the opposite camp. If his policy was sa*" •" Llie Church ot Rome, it was well fitted to lull op,,o? tioii and put to sleep, outside of the Church, that vigilance wtiich the opposite policy of aggression in arousing. ' Away with this parody of the gospel ! ' cry, in lull chorus, the whole pack of Mgr. Bourget's ecclesiastical coursers. ' Out upon this prudence, miserable counter- feit of truth I' The true weapons of the Church, they ao6 KOMi: l\ CAiXADA. insist, arc protest and .'inatlicnia ; and the; frco use which Pius IX. has ni.idc of thcni offers the otdy safe example ior iniitatinii. ■ Th*- piudcncf; of the N'ic.ar-deiu'ral is the prudenrc i,i the ll(;sh, and his inl'aihhihly is the inl'.dh- l)iht\ ol inopportuneness, wliich the Vatican Council has thrust hack into the abyss of (iif;, out of which it had l)een xoniitcd." * 'Libert)' of conscience' -wlun i)roofis needed of so start- linj,'a proposition as this, that it is tlu; boiindf.-n dutyofcivil g(n(;rntnciits to siip|)r(!ss the liberty of conscience in favour of the Church of I'fonic, it is better to (pi(jte t( xtually — 'Liberty u princes and people to abolish and which lie ca or (;vei". It w.is nil an imaj^inary (;vil, wlncli had yel to liapi )en. l)Ul a real and present evu w liich Pius iX. corn- batted in liberty olcDUScience. It was therefore M. de Montalembert and the whole Liberal School that Pius IX. stiiudv when he dealt that withering,' blow at liljcrty of conscience. And when M. Raymond, in iSrj(j, pr(jc!aimcd this same lil)(,rl\- of conscience, as Montalembert had done before, it was a doctrine reprobated (reprouvee) by the II(jly See which he preached and celebrated. Now, to preach that whicdi the Chair of St. Peter condcanns and rejecis is Cialiicanism and Liberalism, or we know not what it is.' It is a fact of supreme interest to be noted that the ■* Tht lanKua^e used is stronKer than this: I'infallibititi' de riniif>p(irtiiinti:, cttte infallihiliti' que It; Vatican Council a rsfouh' dans I'abime de I'enfer ri'ou cllc venait.— Hinan, p. _,2. C.ITIIOLIC Uni'lRlLISM. 207 Ultrainoiitanos of Oiiebcc ojiciily i)ror.laitn that it is the duty of the civil j^'ovcrnnujiit to (^hcy tin; instructions of the I'opc to suppress hherty of cotisciencc and to deny the ri^'ht of openly professinj,'any other reli},Mon tli.in that o f K onu; 11: ip|)ily they do not possess, and in ll lis c(juntry never will possess, the supreme power necessary to put this monstrous doctrine into praeti(e. l>ut the Ultramontane press, I Jltramontane pri.'sls, and I'llra- nKHilane professors in the chief seats of learninjr, caniiol unite in teaching,' the duty of intolerance without f^ivinj^ a tini^e iu tiiture tlioii;^diL that may lead to disastrous results. These are the doctrines which, in Hiiehec, are now ^ainiiif^ the mastery. Dr. Newman disavcnvs them ; the Secretar} -CuMKjral ol the Vatican Council lacked the audacity to stand up in the; face of luirope and defend tliein. rue prude nee w e are further told, ' consi^,ts in de- sirinj^' only what (iod desires ; ' and what this is the I'opc; alone can know. II the command of the ecclesiastic were to (h) evil, unhai)py would Ix- the lot of him who had pro- misee 1 unl iniited o bed i(,nce. Tile last pamphlet on this subject is, in some res]iects, the most pronounced utterance that has been made. 'I'lie Abbe Pelletier finds Liberalism hatifjin^ u()on every bush and lurking in every stream.! He finds i)r()of that Liberalism has more partisans in Canada than is {,'enerally supp(;sed, in the signs of a determination to combat the mch ue iniiuence 01 the ck;rgy in elections; in the dis|)osi- tion to deny the right of the Church to take the initiative in political questi(jns ; in a tendency observable in certain journals to advocate the separati(Mi of Ciiurch and State n on the liberty (jf v/orship and (j1" the age and education ; on religious c(jr[)ora- lue en Europe et LibiTalisme au Canada, 1876. ourna s tc advo n our leg islatio iress ; on marri f Libcralisme Catholiq i ft '. if!: 208 ROME IN CANADA. tions and tlieir property ; on ecclesiastical ininumities. On all these questions, be finds that LiberaUsni has pro- duced bitter fruits. The Abbr Pelletier finds furthci proof in the unfavourable reception which the Programme Catlioliqiie nwX', for though all Catholics, he tells us, arc strictly bound, by their baptism, to lollow the Programme, tlie majority of them, (^)ii one pretext or another, refused to accept it. Burning proofs of Liberalism M. i'elletier finds in the refusal to give the Mrtis, who had only rebelled for tlie benefit of their countr), a prompt, full, and complete amnesty; in the refusal of the Federal Parliament to destroy the common school system of New Brunswick, over which in fact it had no legislati\ c: jurisdictuMi, in the interest of sectarianism. Practically, tin's is the exposition of Liberalism which is now so current as to be almost universal in Quebec. Hov/ever forced aiul unreasonable such an interpretation ma\- be, the intimidating effect on the electors is the same as it would be if it were true. The charge ot Catholic Liberalism was bn^ught against \''icar-General Ca/eau on the strength of the followmg facts : — When the agents of Rome at Quebec thought the time had come for putting into practice the prescrip- tions of the encNiical on the subject of the education of the young, they concluded that the way to do this was to substitute as text-books the li\es of the Saints for the lives of the principal figures in Greek and Roman histor}- ; and essays on the lives of certain saints appeared in the Coiirricr dit Canada, among others that of ' the heroic Christian virgin ' Febronia. She was represented as being despoiled of her garments, in a public place, by ruffians who assaulted her with intent. M. Cazeau, scandalized at the idea of placing such reading in the hands of the }Oung, sent a communlqui' to the Coiirricr CA THOLIC L IBKRALISM. 20(> Stating that he had met with nothing in Pagan authors which sinned against modesty so much as this statement in the Uf'e of a virgin saint. In doing this, his enemies said, I\I. Cazeau woundet! (llhristian truth for the profit of pagan error; as if Cli'.-istian truth was synonymous with a narration of an indecent assault, and that in read- ing (ireek and Roman history one runs imminent risk ot becoming a pagan. For defending classical learning, he was treatetl as the most pestiferous of Catholic Liberals. Though tlu,' assailants have so far I'ailed in the part of their attack wiiich hud for its object the substitution of the lives of the Saints tor classical autliors, they ultimately obtained success on all other points. One French Canadian Roman Catholic, who was educated b}' priests and ammg fellow-students many of whom were afterwartls to become priests, calls upon the Ultramontanes to pause in their headlong career. ' Vou wish,' he says. ' to organize all Catholics into a single party, without other tie, without other basis, than that of religion ; but have you rellected that by that lact alone you organize the Protestant population as a single party, and that then, instead ot peace and harmony, which now exist among the elements of our Canadian population, you will bring on war, religious war, the most frightlul of all wars ? '* If 1 ' 1 1 ■ ! . 1 1 ■■' i ' I : I * Willrid Laurier, M.P. I.ettuvK on rulitical Liberalism, June 2ii, 187,-, in tlie Music Hall, Quebec. 210 ROME IN CANADA. I X. THE APOTHEOSIS OF INTOLERANCE. lis Rome liokls with a death t^rasp t .he dogma of intoler- ance, and the New Scliool teaches it, in a loud voice, and with wearisome reiteration. Bishop lj()urget, the priest O'Donnell, the advocate Thibault, Abbe Puquet, and a host oi pamphleteers and anonymous writers, descant at great length, on the right and the duty of intolerance. From the lectures of Abbe Puquet, delivered to the stu- dents of. the University of Laval,* let us see how the rising generation is being prepared to fulfil its mission and perform its duties: what thoughts it is being made to imbibe, what conduct it is instructed to observe. The students are cold that it is not in France, not in Spain, not in Germany, still less in the New World, that the true doctrine regarding liberty is to be found but at Rome ; Rome, the only guide which Laval acknow- ledges in the teaching of philosophy and theology. The highest ambition which both the professor and the uni- versity have is to be the faithful echo of the Roman doctrine. The principal maxims of Liberalism, the students a^e told, are : liberty of conscience, that is, to believe or not to believe ; liberty of worship (culte), that is, to embrace any religion we think proper ; liberty of the press, that is, to propagate and defend error as well as truth, evil as well as good. Liberty of the press is stigmatized as another name for license. The Abbe leaves the students at liberty to tliink ; but they are ooundto think the truth as ' La LibOralisme. THE APOTHEOSIS OF INTOLERANCE. 2ir it is expounded at Rome, on pain of being deprived of the right to thiiik at all. To proclaim liberty of thought, in matters (if religion, is an impiety: so teach the doctors at Rome ; so teaches this doctor of theology at Laval. God has manifested the truth through the Roman oracles, and \we are bound to accept it, and to believe it in the sole and only sense in which it has been revealed. ' There- fore, we are bound to believe what God has certainly re- vealed.' ' No man has the right or the liberty to believe or to refuse to believe what ' as certainly been revealed by the God of truth, or by the organ which he has chosen to promulgate and explain his law ; this right does not exist.' ' Listen then to the voice of faith manifested by the mouths of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the infallible organs of revealed truth.' This doctor of theology distinguishes two kinds of toler- ance : one civil, the other religous ; one political, the other theological. Civil tolerance consists in a government according to its subjects the permission publicly to pro- fess whatever religion they please. ' To say that it is possible to find salvation in different religions, whet'^-er they be called Catholic, Greek schisn>atic, Lutheran or Calvinistic, this is religious or theological toleration.' In themouthof an individual, this doctrine, the students are told, is blasphemous and absurd. On the lips of a sover- eign or the administrators of a goveriiment, it is an error and an impiety ; because a sovereign or a Government, of whatever form, cannot accord what it does not itself possess ; the right to do evil, to teach, to believe, or to profess error. . . . 'Civil laws may, and ought, in certain circumstances, to tolerate what God and the Church reprove ; but to create it, to give it the right of action, never ; to this reason and faith are opposed.' 'Man has neither the right nor the liberty to refuse to believe, or to choose at his will, be- H I )':t 1. 1 ' ! ' 11 1. ' M 1 jl ' •■■ 11 " ' ' 1 '1 212 ROME IN CANADA. tween the different religions ; ' and a sovereign or a gov- ernment has not, any more than the individual, this right or this liberty. The chiefs and leaders of a people ought, like all other men, to respect the inviolable laws imposed on the human will and intellif^nce, and to conform them- selves thereto. The Abbi; does not think it necessary to use further ar- guments to prove 'that religious toleration is a gross error, an insult to reason, a blasphemy and an impiety.' ' Everywhere, and at all times, the principle of religious or dogmatic intolerance,' he confidently announces, ' will remain master of the position;' for the reason that ' it is the truth,' and 'truth is indestructible and eternal.' 'Those who reproach the Church with being intolerant of toleration, reproach her with nothing less than her right of existence.' ' As the Church cannot renounce her mission without renouncing her existence, she ought al- ways to anathematize this teaching ' of toleration. But even the divine intolerance of which Pius IX. and the Abbe Paquet are enamoured may CDmetin^c s h^ve to yield to the force of circumstances. The Abbu admits that therj may be circumstan. js in which the rigia appl'- cation of the principle of intolerance would bring danger or lead to disaster; and then, we are told, on the author- ity of Mgr. Audisio, ' trutn may cede its place, but not its right, to error.' There is a scale by which the liberty of worship may be regulated, according to c'rcumstances ; but it is a golden rule that nothing which can be withhCid should ever be granted. Liberty of conscience is assum- ed, according to this School, to be granted when no one is constrained to profess, in words or fact, a cuHe which in his conscience he, rightly or wrongly, regards as false. Liberty of worship may mean a worship which is con- fined to the family and in no way obtruded on the public ; it is relatively public when it is exercised in a place I) THE APOTHEOSIS OF INTOLERANCE. 213 where several mee: without external publicity, as Juda- ism and Protestantism have been in the habit of hiding themselves at Rome. For reasons of social order, toleration may sometimes be permitted : ' To prevent evils which might disturb the peace of society, a government is authorized to permit civil liberty of worship, and it is even its duty to do so.' But it is bound, at the same time, to promote the * true worship ' to the best of its ability. And much prudence and sagacity must be used to prevent this civil liberty degenerating into license. In a country where different religions are professed by considerable portions of the population, the government, for prudential reasons, may not insist on that unity of worship which in Spain, Italy, New Grenada, and Mexico it is bound to enforce. France, Belgium, Canada may allow some latitude ; Catholic Governments none. In a word, intolerance is to be enforced wherever there is power to enforce it ; a mea^dre of toleration may be allowed where the govern- ment is not strong enough to withhold it. But the Church is to hold fast to the sheet anchor of dogmatic intolerance. ' To sum up,' says the Abbe, ' the Church never has been, and never will be, anything but reasonable.' And he adds, with unconscious irony : ' Reason neces- cessarily compels ever}^ fair-minded man to accept the principle of dogmatic intolerance. Would it not,' he triumphantly asks, ' be inireasonable to affirm at one and the same time the negative and the p(jsitive of a question, or to regard as true two contradictory proposi- tions?' And this shows precisely where the Church and its children are intolerant. And this intolerance ought to be avowed by every intelligent and reasonalile being. For truth is one, and the Church is the depository of the truth.' The Abbe flourishes a double- sdged sword; and 214 ROME IN CANADA. \V ,'' we venture to say he would be loud in his complaints if the weapon, wrested out of his hands, were turned against himself. If he cannot be commended for his liberality, he deserves our thanks for his abundant candour, which comes as a warning and reads like a revelation. No sooner has the Abbe finished his admission that the toleration of other 'eligions besides that of Rome is sometimes allowable, to prevent social disasters, than he turns round and contradicts himself with proofs that the civil power has no right to grant what he had conceded it to be, under certain circumstances, its duty to grant. A government, he suddenly discovers, cannot proclann civil liberty of worship, without usurping a right which it does not possess. ' It is not judge in matters of reli- gion ; and when it allows civil liberty of worship, it usurps a right which belongs to the spiritual power ; it substitutes itself in place of the infallible tribunal of the Church.' ' To authorize the liberty ol different forms of worship is to hide a profound indifference for religion under an appearance of equity and liberality : this is im- moral ; the living faith is not so accommodating.' ' The supreme law of God, His will as manifested by reason and revelation, is unity of worship ;' a government, especially a Catholic government, should do nothing in the opposite direction : ' on the contrary, it is under an obligation to protect the true religion, to the exclusion ol all false forms of worship ' (cultes). The Abbe's apotheo- sis of intolerance embraces both kinds, dogmatic and civil. Spain is instanced as an example of an entire nation opposed to allowing the open profession of any religion v°xcept the Roman Catholic, on which assumption the recent conduct of the nation in proclainiing toleration, in opposition to the protest of the Pope, affords a suffi- cient commentary. What was done under the Republic has, in this respect, been repeated, not without a suspi- THE APOTHEOSIS OF INTOLERANCE 31 cion of bad faith, under the Restoration. Neither at the one epoch nor the other could the entire nation have been in favour of prohibiting the profession of all but the Roman Catholic religion ;'>for it is impossible to conceive a government opposing itself to the unanimous wishes of a whole people. Mexico, New Granada, Spain, and Italy are here repre- sented as contesting God's superiority over man, 'since by the mouth of the Church God speaks and commands;' conduct which is characterized as 'the liberalism of the atheist, the persecutor, and the tyrant, the liberalism of Lucifer.' Such is the teaching of the University of Laval, under the inspiration of the Vatican decrees. The Abbo Paquet, if we nay I'-elieve his enemies, gave great offence at Rom>> for admitting exceptions to the rule of intolerance. The book, it is alleged, barely escaped the ban of the Index, If it received the commendation of the Civittu Cattolica, the Rev. Alexis Pelletier says, tlie article was inserted at the request of M. Paquet, and by an officious person who escaped the vigilance of the R. R. P. P. editors. The difference between the doctrines of the Old and the New School is, that the latter deny that there arc any ci'xumstances or conditions under which religious liberty is admissible. Even before the Vatican Council was held, Vicar-General Raymond took the ground that, 'con- sidered absolutely, religious liberty is an evil, since it favours error to the loss of souls ; as an abstract principle or a supposed natural right, it ought to be condemned. Now, as in previous times, it is desirable that society should recognize only the one true religion.' So far his orthodoxy is unquestioned ; but when he proceeds to make exceptions '.e falls under the censure of writers who glory in the qualifying word Ultramontane. •I ?i m m H jllL 'I »t« ROME IN CANADA. Fatlier Braiiri, a Jesuit priest of German birth, who lives at Montreal, and stands high in tlie estimation oi' Archbishop Uourget, is one of the great hghts ui the New School. In his work on Christian marriage, y ablished with t e xpress approbation of the Adin. usi rator of the >!,• os-^ of Quebec, am (jf the bishops of Quebec and Thru' "^ivers, he says : ' It is customary to regard Protes- tant ii.xc ,.s a religion which has its rights. This is an error. P. . stantism is not a religion ; Protesta;itis"i has not a single right. It possesses the force of seduction. It is a rebellion in triumph ; it is an error which flatters human nature. Error can have no rights ; rebellion can have no rights. Neither error nor rebellion can dispense with the c/t)ligation to perform a duty. Rebellion has a strict duty to fulfil; this duty is to repent, it is to conu back ; it is submission to the Church. Error ought t^ give up its obstinacy and make way lor the truth.' We have seen French Canada in past times, under the pressure of a strong impulse, act as a political unit ; and if the ascendancy of the New School should become com- plete, we should see it again. The Roman Catholics of Canada claim to-day to number 1,780,000 ; and if this were so, which v/c doubt, they would be nearly one half of the population. In the actual state of matters, it is idle to say that the teaching of the New School has no warning for prudent and thoughtful men. The views I have quoted in favour of intolerance are neither accidental nor isolated. They crop up every- where. Scarcely a lecture is deJi^ered in the Province of Quebec by a Roman Catholic but they find a place in it. On a recent occasion,* Father Lory defined con- science as the practical judgment by which reason ,udges that a thing can or ought to be done, because it is good ♦ Union Catholique, Montreal. Seance du 48 Mui, 1876. This association is, I believe, entirely under the control of the Jesuits. THE APOTHEOSIS OF INTOLERANCE. 217 and just, or that it ought not to be done because it is bad. But he wei on to say : * Reason is not at Uberty to embrace error ; ' that is, what the Church of Rome regards as error. He undertakes to establish that : ' when truth ' J evident, either by means of a certain denionstration, or ' the testimony of an infalHble authority,' that is, the Pope, the ' conscience is at Hberty to embrace it ; when doubt exists, conscience is free to embrace one side or the other, saving always the rights of legitimate authority, to which casus of doubt ought always to V submitted;' ' error has no right to naanifest itself.' These, we are told, are the cases in ' "licL e consci- ence enjoys a liberty more or less ex< ■ dt ' •• the liberty to believe what the Church of Rome hc"'^ to be truth. But, ^I. Lory added, this is not wha' is understood, at present, by liberty of conscience. '-uxt the Liberal School understand by this state of things, in which the State recognizes and accords an equal right of pnblii; manifestations to all religions whatsoever, to error as truth, and to citizens an equal right to practice j.nd manifest them ; ' a state of things which he rejects as wholly unwarranted. So far as the differences go, the truth of one Church is the error of another ; and the State has no means of deciding between them. It can only, in fairness and jus- tice, secure to all the enjoyment of that common liberty which the Ultramontanes so fiercely denounce. The Archbishop of Quebec, as we have seen, placed Le Rcveil under interdict for the unpardonable crime of reporting a speech of Castelar on religious liberty. f The only words which he quotes from the speech as objec- tionable are: Je ne suis ni Cathohque, ni Protestant, mais religieux (I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, but rehgious). But this was not the real offence. Castelar t Circulaire,3i Aoiit, 187c. id i ' ' '' i I 'i'.*' 2lS ROME IN CANADA. stated tliat, in early times, the Si)anish Church had been the most democratic in Europe, thou^di itwas orthodox even to the achnission ofthe Immaculate Conception. Dur- ing the whole of the eleventh century there were only about four appeals to Rome; the people named their bishops and the king confirmed them ; liberty existed in the national Councils of Spain, as was atli sted by the annals of the Council of Toledo, where the ecciesiastica discipline of the nation was regulated, without the aid of Rome and against her opposition. He described how the sjiirit of intolerance attacked, in turn, the Jews, the Maories, the Protestants. Turning ti» Iiimsclf, Castelar remarked that he received his first education from minis- ters of religion, but that on his entrance on jjractical life, at twcnly-two, he soon came to see that ' true liberty can- not exist, unless it has the support of liberty of consci- ence. As professor, he taught this doctrine, and when the Jesuits attacked him for doing so, he was sustained by his university, which held that he was not bound to say what was agreeable, but what was true.' But he was not always so fortunate. Once, when the Jesuits had the upper hand, they succeeded in driving him Irom the university. So great is the crime of reprinting the speech in which these things appear, that the Archbishop of Que- bec issued an order forbidding the faithful to read the journal in which it appeared. If Le; Reveil had contained an article in favour of intolerance and a denunciation uf religious liberty, it would have met a ready approval at the archiepiscopal palace. If we escape from the practi- cal danger of this doctrine, we owe it to the large propor- tion of the population who hold it in abhorrence. When a man tells you he would take your life or ileprive you of your liberty if he had the power, you may thank him for his candour, but you will deem it prudent to be on your guard against his machinations. r I »': i THE APOTHEOSIS OF IMOEERA.XCE. axg There were at the time when this sjH-cch w is re-pub- hshcd tr.ore appeals to Rome, from Canathi, than were sent tliere from Spain in the whole of the eleventh cen- tury ; a fact which the Archbishop probnhly foresaw would create some unpleasant reflections in the minds of a people wIkj passed through a grave crisis to obtain the right of selt-governnient. Ultranioiitanism, when it gets full swing, nnd is not under the influence of some local restraint, is everywhere the same. Mgr. Gaume, a great authority in thf Church, who follows ni the footsteps of M. dc Maislre, has pub- lished a catechism of the S} Ilabus, which is much in favour in Quebec, and which is advertised as having re- ceived the approbation of the Pope.* He defines modern Liberalism as a sect which pretends to conciliate the modern spirit with the spirit of the Church. Having asked what are the spm- mended it ' as cont.'uninf^ an excelknit nsiiiiic of the doctrine of the (Church on this grf;at sacr.iment.' Tlic i'ishop of 'I'hr(;e Kivers cf)ncludes tliat th(; sciene.e and th 1^1 r. -ftl k; It! minor wi 11 so well ser\'e tl k; cause o f truth that the latter will 'victoriously lesuuu; those ri{j;hts which j)rejudice and error have long since sup- pressed or overs! lacinwcf 1 oi IJish i, wh I >oui're WlK) IS never to he outdoiu; by any rival, when on ;iiiy f]uestion everything is claimed for the Church and e\(;r) thing denied to the State, ])articularly recommends the study of this hook to the people of liis diocese; considering, as he does, that an imjjcrious duty is laid upon him to raise a voic(; of waning .igainst 'tlu; fatal errors eonecirning marriage which cause such terrihle evils wherever they arc jiut in circulation. Th le logic c)f th(; author, w hich the I'isho]) of Three Kivers estimates so highly, is a little misty. Take an exami)le: ' Tlu; cejutract is the man :.ige, the sacrament is the Miairiage, therefcne the contract is THE MAURI ACK KEI.ATION. 22J tho Si irr.-iiiiciit , If you .'illow a l(i^n(i;iii a niaior and miiuji' which directly contradict one auollicr, w h;it jiossibh.; perversity is there whicli he could not piove ? Here \v(; liave a definition ot the true sacrament of niarri,-i;^^e : ' Whenever there is a hif^d'iniate niatiiinonial contract lietween a man and a woman, there is a true marriaj^n: siiciament amouf^ Christians.' 'The saceres but lier(! give a. fair summary of the decrees of the Council of Trent lcdge of the protection accorded to the Church, thought him- self entitled to interfere, in certain cases, to prevent or repress the abuses and encroachments which the eccle- siastics sometimes committed. The cession (.A Canada to England changed this state of things. The guarantee oi the free exercise of the Catholic religion accorded to the Canadians, and the fact that the sovereign was a Pro- testant, rend(;n;d as impracticable as dangerous the in- terventi(ni o'i the State in the affairs of tlic Church.' Judge Badgley took f'j opposite groui.d. * 't \. juld be easy,' he said, 'to fix the jurisdiction (four , :)urts in matters of ecclesiastical abuse, especially as the Cfjurt of Qu(!en's Bencli has more than once declared that it in- herited tlie whole su[)eri(jr authority of the highest juris- diction, \\\ Canada, previous to the coni|uest." That the whole civil rights of a people could be taken away by the act (jf cession is a notion which Judge Mondclet emphatic- ally repudiates. Such a change, he argues, (lie French sovereign had no power to make, and the English Crown would not desire to make it if it had the authority to do so. 226 ROME IN Canada. KUi' Of the Ficncli civil law relating to ecclesiastical af- fairs, to \vhicli Father Braiin here appeals, his whole party would be only too happy to be rid at once and for ever. Untlcr that law, unless specially relaxed for reasons of State, the marriage of minors, though performed under the sanction of an ecclesiastical dispensation, was null.-'' The Superior Council of Quebec annulled the marriage of Sieur deRouville, a minor, to Louise Andre, who was of marriageable age, on an appcl coniine d'abiis, brought by the Procureur-General, though it had been f)erformed under cover of a dispensation by the Vicar-General of the diocese. It also enjoined all Vicars-General to observe the ordinances and canonic constitutions concerning the publication of the banns, which could be dispensed with only on the consent of parents or guardians; all cun'S and priests, secular and regular, were required to note, in the record of the celebration of the marriage, whether the contracting parties had parents alive or were under guardians or subject to the control of some one else; to state Vv'hether the necessary legal consent jiad been given by parents or guardians, or whether judicial authority had been obtained where unreasonable opposition had been made. The priest was also obliged to call in four witnesses to the marriage, ' according to the ordinances edicts, declarations, and regulations;' not accordin the Council of Trent or the canon law of Rome. The Council also exacted conformity with the declaration of the king, April g, 1736, that the marriage should be in- scribed in tlie register of the church where the ceremony was performed, and if for good cause the marriage were celebrated in some other church or chapel than that of the parish in which the contracting parties resided, the register was afterwards to be taken to the proper church and there inscribed. The cures and priests were forbid- * A et du Conseil Superieur la Juin, 1741. THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 527 den to enter the record of the marriage on loose sheets, which could be easily removed, and the contracting parties deprived of the benefit of all the advantages of the contract of marriage. So great were the precautions taken to have the civil laws enforced, and all attempts to override them by ecclesiastical encroachments frustrated. The ordinance of the year 1742, and the declaration of the king four years before, bring us near to the period of the cession of Canada, and they make us acquainted with the lineaments of that civil law on the subject of marriage to which Father Braim apoeals, apparently without so much as suspecting how complete a reply it furnishes to his own contentions. The civil ordinances forbade the priests to celebrate tlie marriage of minors on any less evidence of the con- sent of parents or guardians than their written authority. t It sometimes happened that when a projected marriage to which one of tlie parties was a minor became matter of notoriet}', all ecclesiastics were judicially warned not to lend the aid of their ministry to its performance, j But while the Government took the greatest precautions to prevent ecclesiastics celebrating marriages which the civil laws discountenanced, it had from an early period held out extraordinary inducements t voung persons in Canada to enter into wedlock. A^ arly as 1660 the French king offered premiums for lai famiiies.§ From that time every father of ten livinu legitimate children was to receive a pension of three h ired livres, and the merit of having reared twelve civ Iren was to lie re- warded with a pension of four undred livres a year. But there was a condition attached to these premiums which showed that, in the opinion of the king, an increase ■f This fact is recited in Ordonna-.ce de 6 Fev, 1727. I Ord. C Fev. 1727. J Arr^n du Conseil d'J Roy, i Avril, 15 n 228 ROME IN CANADA. in the number of priests, monks, and nuns was not a pro- per object of national encouragement : if any of the children belonged to any of these three classes, the parents were not to be entitled to the royal bounty. But if the Government refused to allow the ecclesiastics '.o authorize the marriage of minors by a disp' nsation, it i:laimed for itself the right to authorize and encourage such marriages when public policy seemed to make early marriages _ -Arable. Not only was the marriage of young men of twenty years of age and under at the dale just mentioned, and of girls of sixteen and under, author- ized, but these marriages were encouraged by u bounty which passed under the name of 'the present of the king.' The present of twenty livres to each young man and young woman was payable on the day of marriage ; and as French parents exercised the most absolute despotism over their children in the article of marriage, the most impor- tant event in their lives, Canadian parents were ex- pected to copy their bad example, and every father who neglected to get his sons married at twenty years of age and his daughters at sixteen ought, Colbert thought, to be subject to a pecuniary fine. But I have seen no proof that such fines were ever imposed. What is certain is that, in the days of the French dominion, the civ'' government exercised absolute con- trol over questions of marriage, with which bishops and Jesuits now join in denying it any right whatever to interfere. The Church of Rome, pretending to possess the sole right of legislating on marriage questions, has not. Father Braim contends, any need to receive the authority of the State to celebrate a marriage. But if the laws of the land were set aside in the celebration of marriages, we know what would happen : invalidity of the marriages, and ille- gitimacy of the offspring. But the object of proclaiming i, ^1 1. t»t- THF MARRIAGE RELATION. 22(y these extreme doctrines is that the State may so far give way to the Church as to abandon its own rights and con- cede all her claims, even the most extravagant. To tell two persons whose destinies have been bound together by the ties of a civil marriage that they are bound to separate, can hardly be passed over as a piece of innocent declamation. It might not be without its effect upon some persons in tliis position, and the effect must certainly be of a mischievous tendency. The same remark will apply to the declaration that •. ' A law which authorizes civil marriage has no force to bind the con- science ; it ought to be regarded with contempt, and ac- cursed as the crime of a government.'* This doctrine strikes at the root of civil society, and its assertion can- not be read without a deep sense of abhorrence and detes- tation. The authority of fiv.. raints is invoked to prove that when there is a confiic b':. v/een the civil and the ec- clesiastical law no account is to be taken of the civil law ; advice which, if acted upon, would certainly lead those who put their faith in it into trouble. Civil marriage incurs excommunication, and separation is made the con- dition of absolution. From this it follows logically, and Father Braixn does not shrink from the conclusion, ' that the parliaments which authorize civil marriage, labour to bring about the damnation of souls.' These are modest assumptions for a foreign Jesuit priest to set up in Canada. Father Brarin claims for the Church a supreme, inde- pendent, a d exclusive power, which she holds by divine right, over marriage ; from which many important conse- ♦ Father Braiin might have cited the authority of the present Pope for this mon- strous doctrine. ' Hardly any greater outrage on society,' sajo Mr. Gladstone iSpivchis of Pope Pius IX.), 'in our judgment has ever been committed than by Pope Pius IX. in certain declarations respecting persons who art married civilly without the sacrament. For in condemning them as guilty of concubinage, he releases hem from the reciprocal obligations of man and wife.' If 15' ■^'^ I* "* ! io ROME IN CANADA. quences follow; the first and most important of wliich is that the State can have no right whatever over ques- tions of marriage or matrimonial causes. Soon after the conquest, the British Government pn^mised its protection to any Roman Catholic priest, in Canada, wiio might be disposedto enter into matrimony. Father Braiin tells us that, even if a priest were to turn Protestant and tlien marry, his marriage would be null ; ' a sacrilegious concu- binage, even though all the governments upon earth should proclaim it legitimate.' If ' all parliaments, all governments, pronounced valid a marriage contracted with dir'unniit* nnpediment and without dispensation, their sentence would have no effect.' Let po one imagine that the pretensions of the Ultra- monta concern only the members of the Roman Catlio- lic Church. Let any one disposed to take that view of the matter go to Father Braiin for information on the subject, and he will be told that 'the universal laws of the Church arc binding on heretics, and the (firiinaiis impediments annul the marriages of heretics.' The general principle of the ecclesiastical law, the same authority in- forms us, is that : 'The Church has jurisdiction over all who have received baptism ; consequently over the here- tics themselves, who are bound by the universal laws of the Church.' Let all Protestants therefore understand that, as they can read no book which the bishop or the Pope does not authorize them to read, so they can only be married in the way which the Church of Rome directs, under pain of nullity, illegitimacy if there be children, eternal perdition. Father Braiin may probably live to learn that his doctrines are not likely to have prac- tical application even in the Province of Quebec. Ir ' Dirimant. THrme de Droit Canonique. On appelle tmpechement dirimans, tin drfaut, qui emporte la nuUite dun mariage. Impcdinuntnm dii iiitcns. U y a qua- tor^^e emp'''cht:nens d!:iv:::r.s. — T rcvous. :i THE MARRIAGE RELATIOS. 23r But if every person who has been baptised is thereby brought under the control of the Church of Rome, how does it happen that the baptism of Protestants was, throughout Europe and tlie United States, so far regard- ed as invaHd, that when any of theni sought admission into the Church of Rome re-baptism was made an univer- sal rule ?i But much depends upon whether decrees of the Council of Trent have been iniblished in a particular coun- try, province, or parish. Pupcs have before now dispensed with the impediment of clandestinity, for the benefit Ot her^^tics, where these decrees had not been pub- lished. Benoit XIV., in 1741, performed this friendly act for the benefit of ihe heretics of Belgium and persons who had entered into m.'xed marriages ; and in 17C4, tlie year after the treaty of cession, Clement XIII, extended the declaration of Benoit XIV. to Canada. At the same time, this Pope declared that the other canonical impedi- ments were fully binding on heretics, and took from the Vicars Apostolic the power cf granting dispensations in this respect. As we are asked to admire the logic of Father Braiin it is curious to note the conclusion he draws from these facts. ' It therefore belongs,' he says, as if it were a matter of logical necessity, 'to the Cliurcii to pans judgi.ient on whatever regards the substance of the sacrament of marriage ; she alone Las the right to judge matrimonial causes : she alone has the right to make laws concerning the conjugal tie.' The difficulty Father Braiin will find to be that States are obdurate, and refuse to be convinced by this kind of logic, though it assume a form never so perfect. Here is a picture which Father Braiin paints as o;ie which may, in a certain eventuality, be realized in Canada: ' Let civil marriage be established in Canada, and y(.'U \ See Abbe McGuire. Ricutil de !\'ott:s Divencs, m ir I 23* ROME IN CANADA. will see pretended wives obliged to separate from their pretended husbands on the bed (if death ; or to have their marriage celebrated in the moments ot the last agony ; or to die without receiving the sacraments and ' — here the Jesuit becomes facetious — ' be legally damned.' With a view of taking from the State all pretence ot right to legislate on the (luestion of marriage, otherwise than on its civil effects, Father Braiin rejects the doc- irine of those theologians of his own Church who separ- ate the sacrament from the contract. In identifyn.j the contract with the sacrament and the sacrament with the contract, he leaves no room for the State to legislate on the contract wdiile leaving the sacrament to the domain of the Church. The chapter headed 'Refutation of the Eiroi^ of Pothieron Marriage' is a curious though not unique piece of reasoning. '^Marriage,' says Pothier, 'has two distinct characters : the sacrament and the civil contract. As a sacrament it ought to be clothed with formalities pre- scribed by the Church ; as a contract it is subject to the secular laws, the violation of which entails nullity. The quality of sacrament comes after the contract, and pre- sumes its pre-existence.' The refutation which the head- ing of the chapter led us to expect consists of the state- ment that the doctrine of Pothier has been condemned by the Pope in the sixth article of the Syllabus. ' There- fore,' such is the logic of Father Braiin which we are in- vited to admire, ' to pretend that the civil government has the right to judge of the matrimonial contract is to incur anathema.' After the same fashion, Pothier is refuted, at length, thrc ugh many pages, which are relieved from dulness by the astounding assumption of the author. The opinions of the jurisconsuls, we are told, for our instruction, ought to be rejected. Still, Pothier is m the head of every THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 233 advocate and the hands of every law student in Quebec, and we fear it must continue to be a text-book at Laval, until that institution be supplanted by the projected Jesuit university at Montreal. But let the law students beware: the Sovereign PontifT prohibits the reading of a thesis taught in the University of Turin, and in which are maxims identical with those laid down by Pothier. His Holiness first catalogues the errors, and then i)ron()unces the sentence of condemnation, to which he adds a terrible penalty. If the Pope is to rule in Canada, after he has ceased to rule in the States once qualified as Pontifical, we really do not see ho'v the gaps which time and death make in the ranks ol the bar are to be closed. The Italiin professor Jean N. Nuytz, whose work the Pope condemned in 1851, denied each and all of the pretensions of the Church of Rome on the subject of marriage. He held that the sacrament of marriage is accessory to the contract ; that it consists of the nuptial benediction, and is separable from the contract ; that the marriage tie is not, under all circumstances, indissoluble ; that the Church has not the right to remove impediments, but that this right belongs to the State, which can alone remove existing impediments ; that matrimonial causes are properly cognizable by the civil tribunals ; that the forms prescribed by the Council of Trent are not obligatory, under pain of nullity, when the civil law has prescribed another form. So audacious a heretic could not be expected to be allowed to teach doctrines so unpalatable at Rome, in the Royal University at Turin, without being visited with spiritual censures. Pius IX., having consulted ' the Con- gregation of the Inquisition, supreme and universal,' condemned these doctrines as false, audacious, scandal- ous, erroneous, injurious to the Holy See. The faithful were forbidden to read the condemned books — for it seei.iS ■ 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 i': IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I |50 ^^* 2.5 2.2 IM :25 11114 IIIIII.6 6" V] 'c^l ^r /^ W^^ i^/ Photographic Scienc3s Corporation 4 ^ \ <^\ ^N [V ^ 6^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S«0 (716)872-4503 234 ROME IX CANADA. there was more than one — under pain of interdict, in the case of clerks, and of the excommunication major in the case of laymen. As Pothier was long since subjected to similar treat- ment. It follows that no one can pursue the study ot the law in Lower Canada, and no judge can administer the law of marriage, without coming under the penalty of the excommunication major. The Church of Rome bases its pretensions on the assumption that marriage is regulated by divine law, of which the Church is the administrator. But these admin- istrators of this divine law, who are themselves very human, claim the right of dispensing with the divine rules laid down tor their guidance whenever they think proper to do so. The ground on which the Church of Rome claims authority, legislative and judicial, over marriage is, that she merely interprets and puts into force the divine law. Now, a divine law must be inflexible, unchangeable, eternal. But the impediments to marriage which the Church of Rome sets up have not always been the same. For instance, the impedimentof affinity created by unlaw- ful intercourse was reduced by the Council of Tren) to the second degree inclusively.* By the canon law ad sedein, cousins-german were of the second degree, and by the civil law of France they were of the fourth degree ; while the issue of cousins- german were respectively of the third and sixth degrees : by the Council Latran they were restricted to the fourth degree inclusively, according to the civil computation. The wider the prohibited degrees, the more frequent the necessity of dispensations. The Popes were certainly not ♦ II en resulte que si Pompee a connu charnellement Pauline, il ne peut plus epouser ni la mere, ni la fille, ni la soeur, ni la tante, ni la cousine germaine, ni la niece de Pauline ; et Pauline, de son c6te, nq peut epouser aucun des parens de Povipie qui se trouvent dans les degres qui viennent d'etre n\entionn6s. — Abbe McGuire. 'it ■I ■ THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 235 guided by the inflexible rule of any divine law. Philip II. of Spain was enabled, by a dispensation of the Pope, to espouse his neice. Alter this dispensation had been granted, the King and the theologians of Spain had the strongest motive to uphold this power in the Pope ; but the Faculty of Theology at Paris did not approve of it, its objection being grounded on the fact that though the Pope is head of the Church universal, and is clothed with sovereign power, he must submit to the decrees of the ancient Councils and the canons. A Papal dispensa- tion enabled the Queen of Portugal to marry her uncle, and the son of that marriage, the Prince of Brazil, was by the same means allowed to marry his aunt.t That the prohibited degrees in the Church of Rome were not always uniform proved that the alleged divine law, of which she claims to be the interpreter, was a law alterable at the discretion of men ; and the whole super- structure built upon the pretence of administering a divine law falls to the ground, involving in the ruin the extrava- gant pretensions put forth by writers of the school to which Father Braiin belongs, j Pope Urban VIII. authorized the RecoUet mission- aries in Canada to grant dispensations to the third and fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, to cover polygamy among the Indians with the same sanction, and to declare legitimate the children of polygamous mar- riages. § Paradoxical as it may sound, the motive alleged was that after the savage polygamists had been converted and t Rev. Charles Buck. t Coquille. § Dispensandi in tertio, et quarto simplici, et mixto consanguinitatis, vel affiniutis in matrimoniis contractis, nee non dispensandi cum gentilibus et infidelibus pli:ies exhores habentibus Declarandi prolem legitimam in prxfatis matri- moniis ae prieterito contractis susceptam. The document, dated March 29,1635, is given at length in Sagard, /fis/ot'r; m(fa, on the fifth (unnumbered) page, after p. 1005 : Paris, 1636. .1 ! ; f- f i- 1 5 i'-a* ! M ' : H if 'r:i i I J ■ - (1 ' ■' ! J'-' 2^6 ROME IN CANADA. baptized, each of them might content himself with that one of his former wives whom he liked best. The Church of Rome holds that, though there is one cause for which a husband may put away his wife, or a wife her husband, neither can marry again, since the marriage tie is perpetual. The civil laws of almost all countries permit a re-marriage in the circumstances sup- posed, and on this point the Church of Rome and the civil authority are in direct antagonism. Though the Church of Rome pretends not to sanction divorces, she has found an excellent substitute in the long list of invalidating impediments. She has disguised the divorces she has sanctioned, though not calling them by that name, under the denial that there had been any marriage. If it can be proved that the marriage was per- formed without the consent of one of the parties, that is cause for separation. By this rule, ninety marriages out of every hundred that take place in France could be annulled ; for it is notorious that they are nearly all made by the parents of the parties to be married, and that those most directly interested have often little or nothing to say in the matter. The annul- ling of a marriage for want of consent in one of the parties would be a divorce as certainly as if It were set aside for any other cause. But the Church of Rome rejects the word, and falls back on an antecedent impedi- ment, which, when it consists of want of consent, might be collusive and fraudulent. But if the Church of Rome were allowed to declare marriages null on account of any of the impediments which she chose to set up, marriages would often be dissolved against the consent of the parties thereto. The right to exercise this jurisdiction would bring an enormous addition to the power and the wealth of the Church. But, as we elsewhere notice, the opposition of this Church to the establishment of a Court of Divorce, THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 237 which for the sake of uniformity the British Government asked that of Canada to establish, has hitherto prevailed. The abuses to which courts of divorce give rise in some of the neighbouring States have not tended to recommend these tribunals to the sober judgment of the Canadian people. At the same time, Father Braiin greatly exag- gerates the immoral influence of the Court of Divorce in England, when he represents married persons as frequently seeking the means of severing the nuptial tie in a pre- meditated commission of one of the crimes for which divorces are granted in that country. In the same way he describes Queen Elizabeth as a bastard, who was equally wanting in humanity and chastity ; he stigmatizes Cranmer as a bigamist, and says that Knox counted his sister-in-law among the numerous victims of his disorders. But it was part of Father Braiin's business to show that Protestantism covered itself with a multitude of crimes when it departed from the maxims of Rome on the ques- tion of marriage. The question of a Canadian legislator being allowed to facilitate a divorce, for the most legitimate of causes, was referred to Rome, a few years ago, by M. Hector Langevin. Anterior to the confederation of the Pro- vinces, a Court of Divorce existed in New Brunswick. Afterwards, a case came up in which the judge of the court was interested, and being unable to sit, he wrote to the Minister of Justice, Sir J. A. Macdonald, asking him to appoint a judge ad hoc to hear the cause. M. Langevin, a colleague of Sir John, finding all the bishops absent at the Vatican Council, wrote to one of them, asking to be instructed in his duties as legislator. The Canadian bishops, finding the question too weighty for their decision, referred it to one of the Roman Congrega- tions which has cognizance of such matters. The de- 1 I • ■.' 4 :h 338 ROME IN CANADA. cision informed M. Langevin that, as a Catholic, -he was not at liberty to vote for the bill.* This is one of the numerous cases in which Canadian legislators feel themselves obliged to enquire at Rome what is their duty to their constituents and their country. The Church of Rome, by her general opposition to divorce, has rendered a great service to society. But she has done much to neutralize this benefit by repre- senting celibacy as a holier state than that of matrimDny, and affecting to raise the priest and the monk, on account of their celibacy, to a higher moral level than those who live in wedlock. If monks and priests and nuns are equal to saints of the first order, as Count de Gasparin has well remarked, t it is because marriage is assumed to be a bond of dishonour and the family an inferior order. Besides, the general opposition of Rome to divorce is enfeebled by numerous sinister exceptions ; by the annul- ment of a large number of marriages contracted by per- sons in high life, and on that account the more certain to spread afar the contagion of an example which often rested on no better foundation than the accordance of the act with the Papal policy at the moment. When Rome brands all divorce as immoral, she only pronounces the decree of her own guilt. She may call the divorces she pronounced with unbounded liberality in the middle ages by another name, but they are divorces none the less. In another way Rome did her best to dissolve marri- ages and bastardize the offspring. When she interdicted the exercise of worship in a State and forbade the priests to confer the sacraments. among which marriage was ♦ La contjrt'gation donna sa di'cision qui me fut transmise et qui declarait entie autreschostfs que, comme catholique, nous ne pouvons pas voter pour une mesure de ce genre. — H. L. Langevin's evidence in tlie Charlevoix election case, 1876, -f L'Ennemi de la Famille. the THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 839 ranked, all the marriages celebrated during the time the in- terdict was in force were treated as null, the innocent wives r.s concubines, and the h'^lpless children as illegitimate. Father Braiin lays down a rule which would give the priest the power of saying, in a very large number of cases, whether marriages ought to be permitted or not. The Church of Rome, he observes, has always blamed the marriage of children without the consent ot their parents, imless where the cupidity of the paieuts in a measure compels the children to take that course. The opposition of parents may be cither reason alile or capri- cious, and we are told ' it is for the pastor of souls to judge whether the opposition of the parents is legitimate or not.' In the Province of Quebec, where a very large proportion of the marriages are contracted at a tender age, this rule would make the priest the arbiter of the destinies ot the youth of his parish. This a new doctrine, and is part of the general aggres- sive movement which the New School is making. Writ- ers who undertook to instruct young cures in the perform- ances of their duties used to tell them that, where the father and mother opposed unreasonable objections to the marriage of children who were minors, an applica- tion to the Court of Queen's Bench ought to be made, and that, if reason for doing so were shown, the judge would authorize the marriage. :|: Every one knows that mixed marriages are no rare oc- cuirence. They are, however, according to Father Braiin, ' generally disapproved by natural and divine law ; they are besides expressly prohibited by the canon law.' And yet it is well known that such marriages are frequently sanctioned and performed by Roman Catholic priests, and even bishops. In a western county of On- tario, where there is a mixed French and English popula- ; Abbi' Maguire, A'tvi/t'iV i/t' \ctes Dherscs. i , 9 ' i 240 ROME IN CANADA. tion, one Protestant, the other Roman Catholic, a regular rule was laid down and acted upon for the education of the offspring of such marriages : the girls were to be Roman Catholics, the boys Protestants. By the opera- tion of the law of natural selection, it came to be demon- strated, after the lapse of many years, that a large majority of the children were male ; and then the Church of Rome repudiated the rule which had, by its express consent, long been acted upon. The difficulties connected with the education of the offspring of mixed marriages are generally smoothed by special arrangement, though they are liable to be ag- gravated by clerical interference. Disparity of faith is an dirimant impediment between a Christian and an unbaptized person ; but between a Roman Catholic and a heretic, for whose conversion there is always reason to hope, the impediment does not amount to a prohibition, or render the parties incapable of contracting a marriage, although no dispensation has been obtained. But here, as at almost every other point, the laws of the land clash with the prescriptions of the Church of Rome. In 1868, Judge Monk, of the Superior Court of Montreal, decided that the marriage of a Christian with a pagan Indian contracted according to the custom of the tribe ought to be regarded as valid in Lower Canada.* The claim of the Church of Rome alone to possess the power of creating impediments to marriage and to be the sole judge in ecclesiastical causes is one which, Father Braiin at their head, the New School seems inclined to press to extremity ; but to suppose that it will be granted is to suppose Canada sunk into an extremity of submission to Rome of which the world scarcely now presents an example. • Desire Girouard, B. C. L. Comidirations sur Us Lois CiviUs dii Manage. THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 241 It is gravely argued, even by some lawyers, that matri- monial causes ought to be judged by the ecclesiastical authority; and we have seen that in one instance Judge Polette referred a cause of this kind to Bishop Cook oi Three Rivers, and founded his judgment on that of the bishop. But the rule seems to be that the Superior Court of Quebec decides such questions, as it decides others that come before it, and entirely ignores the alleged ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Under the French dominion, the right of the Church ot Rorr;e to dispense with publication of banns was strictly prohibited by the ordinance of Blois ; so that in this parti- cular, as well as in a hundred others, the Church of Rome in Canada claims to-day a range of power which was denied to her before the conquest. Certainly the ordinance of Blois is too plain to be capable of misconception : ' Our subjects,' it says, ' cannot contract valid marriages with- out precedent publication of banns ; ' and Pothier says : * when a marriage is accused of clandestinity, if the pub- lication is not v/ell proved, the want of publication of banns has great weight in declaring it clandestine, and consequently in depriving it of civil effects.' Neverthe- less such marriages publicly solemnized would not be set aside.t By a play on the words contained in the Quebec Act, relating to the ' free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome,' Ultramontane authors contend that the civil law of France was swept away after the conquest and the canon laws of Rome on the subject of marriage took its place. t On this pretension, as we have already seen, the Courts have given conflicting judgments ; but the judgment given, in final appeal, by the Privy Council is, that the law of France relative to ecclesiastical mat- t James Armstrong, Advocate. A Treatise on the Law Relating to Marriages in Lower Canada. I Girouard. I' ■ ■ ■ '.It 1! • !h 'I Ji it . if -, 1 i'-i\ 1 1 i. it 242 ROME IN CANADA. ters which was in force in Canada at the time of the conquest remains in force to-day, subject to such modi- fications as have been made by statute. It is certain that the civil law of France did impose impedimc-nts to marria^^c, and these impediments no ecclesiastic was permitted to assume to remove. Two other kinds of impediments were admitted : one arising from scripture, the other from the canon law. When the impediment proceeded from the canon law, the neces- sity of going to Rome for a dispensation was not admitted.* Bef(r-e France adopted the prevailing opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, divorces <> vinculo were per- mitted ; afterwards divorces inensa ct tlioro were allowed. The Canadian Senate, which has power to grant divorces of either kind, must, in doing so, l)>j assumed to act judi- cially, and though its judgment takes the form of a legis- lative enactment, it practically exercises the functions of a Court of Divorce. The fourth Provincial Council of Quebec, at which the Provinces of Toronto and Saint Boniface were repre- sented, in its XII decree made a resume of the reasons which the Church of Rome opposes to the establishment of a Court of Divorce. These reasons must be equally intended to apply to the Senate exercising the functions of a Court of Divorce. Pius IX., in an allocution of Sept. 27, 1852, describes the doctrine of divorce as treating with contempt ' the dignity and the riiystery of the sacrament of marriage ;' as ignoring and destroying the institution ; as treating with contempt the power of the Church over this sacrament ; as favouring errors already con- demned as heretical ; as contradicting the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, by treating marriage as a purely civil contract, and assuming the right of civil tribunals to judge of matrimonial causes. * Coquille. THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 243 Father Braiin, going beyond this allocution of the Pope and the Syllabus of 1864, plainly involves in his anathema the Canadian Senate, when it undertakes to pronounce a divorce in a matrimonial cause legally brought before it and legally dealt with. If we regard the doctrines of Father Braiin merely as a programme which the New School is desirous of realiz- ing, it will not be without instruction and warning for us. The validity of certain marriages performed in Ontario by Catholic priests, but in which the requirements of the civil law had been disregarded, came before 'the tribunals on the question of the right of succession to property. liut though they were elaborately argued, no judgment was pronounced ; and the Legislature was finally called in to cut the knot of the difficulty by declaring the dis. puted marriages legal. It is always undesirable, and gen- erally dangerous, to resort to ex post facto legislation, and it is doubly so when the effect is to decide questions which have been before the courts and on which no judgment has yet been pronounced. The Church of Rome had for years clamoured in vain to have these marriages con- firmed. Still, it can hardly be doubted that it was better that they should be confirmed ; for the dissolution of families by a judicial decision resting on some technical informality in the marriages would have been a social calamity. But Father Braiin would possibly not admit that the civil authority may, in this respect, do what the Church importunes it to do ; and if he were consistent he would have to declare the Legislature of Ontario anathema. The claim of Bishop Bourget for the Church of an un- limited right of dispensation is one which was not admitted when Canada was a French colony. 111 IP'! x6 244 ROME IN CANADA. XII. APPEALS TO ROME. The nearer Canada draws to Rome, the more frequent are appeals to the Roman jurisdiction. The fifth Pro- vincial Council of Quebec accepted, in the most absolute manner, the decrees of the Vatican Council. The Coun- cil, in the words of Archbishop Taschereau, accepted in the most absolute way everything that was defined by the Vatican Council and especially on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This official act binds in a special manner the Church, already bound before, of which the Council was the local organ. To appeal to an infallible judge the temptation is of course very great. Between the infallible and the fallible utterances of the Pope, Canadian Ultramontanes make no distinction ; they do not even admit that a Pope who is infallible in his teaching office, on the subject of faith and morals, can be fallible in anything. In accepting absolutely everything the Vatican Council decreed, the fifth Provincial Council ofQuebec accepts and echoes the declaration * that by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordin- ary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episco- pal, IS immediate,' and to which all are bound 'to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also to those that appertain to the government and dis- cipline of the Church throughout the world.' Tliis leaves no room for the operation of any guarantees for the protection of national or civil rights. The right to li; APPEALS TO ROME. 243 prevent discipline, wholly under the control of Rome, being exercised to the injury ot the nation, which has at diflerent times, and in nearly all countries been enforced, is, at one stroke, swept away. In accepting, in a spirit of absolute submission, all the definitions of the Vatican Council, the fifth Council of Quebec accepts the declaration 'that it ispermitlcd to no one to interpret the sacred Scriptures contrary to ' the decree of the Council of Trent concerning interpretation, ♦ nor contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.' But what ifsuch unanimous consent has noexTstencc ? The declaration is remarkable chiefly for its pronounced intolerance. Further, the Provincial Council necessarily accepts the statement that the Church 'derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science,' of which the Church is the sole judge. Does the Church still hold that the science of Gallileo was false ? If not, when did she acknowledge her error? Are we to stop our geological investigations, or hide the discoveries to which they lead ? Thfc Provincial Council also necessarily accepts and echoes the declaration that the Pope ' is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment.' And that no appeal from the judgments of the Popes to gen- eral Councils is lawful. This declaration of the Vatican Council is already bear- ing abundant fruit. Appeals to Rome are heard of al- most every day, and some of the judges evidently look with concern upon the possibility ol their judgments being condemned at Rome. Judge Routhier recently stated, n i:! li ■It niil'u ! ; -i ; 246 ROME IN CANADA. m. on the Bench, with evident pride and satisfaction, that it was not true, as had been reported, that one of his judg- ments had been condemned at Rome ; that on the con- trary, it had been greatly praised there ; only one of the grounds on which it was based had been condemned. He had evidently made personal enquiries on the sub- ject at the centre ot Papal authority. M. Langevin submitted to receive instruction from Rome as to what his duty was as a Canadian legislator in a particular instance. M. Tremblay appealed to Rome asking to have adjudicated upon a cause arising out of an election in which he was a candidate, and which he complains that the Archbishop did not decide with promp- titude, or show any disposition to decide at all. Some- times the priests are unable to tell the electors for which candidate they ought to vote till the question has been sent to Rome and an answer received. At the Montreal West election, 1876, his eminence Cardinal de Angelis was asked whether it was permissible for Roman Catho- lic electors to vote lor one of the candidates who was a Freemason. When the question was put it was explained that the other candidate was out of the question, and that the interests of the Church seemed to require that the prohibition of Roman Catholics to vote for a Freemason should in this instance be removed. The response was that, under the circumstances, it was permissible to vote for a Freemason.* When a letter appeared in a Toronto journal, March 17, 1876, under the signature of * An Ultra- montane,' the same Cardinal being appealed to, gave an elaborate opinion on its merits from the Roman standpoint. The Courrier du Canada, rejoicing in the possession of the Papal benediction as a good Catholic journalist, is never- theless not quite infallible. One day the editor, feeling the need ot ecclesiastical guidance in the treatment of poli- ♦ Le Nouveau-Monde and L'Union da Cantons de I'Est i :i! APPEALS TO ROME. 247 tico-religious questions having reference to the alleged undue influence of the clergy, wrote to the Archbishop of Quebec for instructions. The Archbishop replied, August 14, 1876, that the fundamental points in dispute having been referred to Rome for decision he could not properly interfere. But, as everything had been said on both sides, he thought the decision ol Rome should be awaited m silence. Another Quebec journalist {Le Caua- dien), who is painfully and belligerently orthodox, threat- ened, September, 1876, to appeal to Rome if he should be condemned in Canada for his treatment ot the same question. Appeals to Rome come irom all sides. A pastoral of the late Bishop of Montreal was recently appealed against. The violence of the Ultramontane bishops and priests was appealed against. The question how far the clergy are entitled to interfere in political elections was sent for decision to Rome. Questions concerning the Canadian Institute of Montreal were referred to Rome, both by laymen and ecclesiastics. Questions of Univer- sity education, raised by the Jesuits, were referred to Rome. When there is a question of the canonic erection of parishes, an order from Rome is awaited as the signal for action ; and when a Canadian bishop issues a decree of erection it goes to Rome for revisal, and when it comes back, such revised decree obtains, by a special legislative enactment, the force of law in the Province of Quebec. D^'putations to Rome are constantly taking place. Au- thors, pamphleteers, journalists, who fall into the errors k" :; lalized by the Syllabus, are denounced to the Holy Jffice, or their writings are placed under the ban by a more summary act of some agent of Rome in the Cana- dian Episcopate. When the Roman jurisdiction is invoked, it is not often by way of appeal ; in the majority of cases the m m ; I :.■ i '. 1 i'^'i ! t I ! ' . li; I ! II :ii' ii! .ii: 248 ROME IN CANADA matter in contestation has not been previously decided in this country. Liberals and Conservatives alike rush to Rome, for redress which they could better and more speedily obtain at home. These appeals to Rome, by investing a foreign authority with a power and an influence it does not naturally possess, tend to repress the national spirit andun-Canadianizethe people. A Montreal priest* stands ready, if the Pope should disavow a literary performance of his (La Comedie In- female), to curse it himself. In a letter to the Pope, June 13, 1872, he says : ' You are the judge of consciences, the doctor of faith ; yours are the words of eternal life ; judge you my book. If you condemn it, I also will curse it. If, on the contrary, you do not disavow it, 1 will thank the author of all good for having given me courage, and armed me with truth and justice.' Surely there can be no more effectual way than this of saying that the Pope is the Church and something more than the Church : a God-man whose ' words are eternal life !' And the Pope not unfrequently interferes, or authorizes the bishops to interfere, in the civil affairs of Canada. By an apostolic decree of December 22, 1865, the Bishop of Montreal was authorized to divide that city into as many parishes as he might judge necessary ; and each new parish, including that of Notre-Dame, which was al- ready in existence, was to be administered, not by the Sem- inary, but by priests whom the Seminary might present to the Bishop for approbc^tion.f A few months later. Bishop Bourget announced his in- tention to act upon the pontifical direction. ;{; He ex- plained the nature of a parish, as consisting of an eccle- siastical (irrondissement,{onnGd. by the spiritual authority * Alph. Villeneuve. t Bishop Bourget. Lettre Pastorale, 26 Avril, 1866, ; Lettre Pastorale, 23 Mai, 186C. APPEALS TO ROME. M" 3 i, and added, that when this ecclesiastical division obtains the recognition of the Government for civil purposes, the canonic parish acquires certain civil prerogatives. But, as there was no probability that the Government would recognize the new parishes to be created in pur- suance of an order from Rome, the Bishop added that this consent was not always necessary, and in certain cases it might even be considered inopportune. The decree of Bishop Bourget erecting the new parishes in the city of Montreal was sent to Rome, to receive the assent of the Pope, with or without amendments. In point ot fact, it was amended there, and in its final form w;i !l; ■ I 264 ROME IN CANADA. the evangelists with the progress of society, he enters the service of Caesar and of those who invent pretended rights in favour of a false liberty ; as if darkness and light could co-exist and as if truth does not cease to be truth when violence is done to it by taking away its true meaning and despoiling it of its inherent immutability.' Five apostolic briefs declare that it is not permissible to be a liberal Catholic. Paragraph four contains only general statements, in no way objectionable. The fifth paragraph objects to the exclusion of th^ clergy from politics ; and to the assertion that in politics the people ought to practice moral independence ; in other words, that morality, applied to politics, may exist inde- pendent of dogma.* Those who complain of the undue influence of the clergy in politics are denounced as the greatest enemies of the people. It is this paragraph that contains the menace of excommunication against electors who refuse to vote as the priest directs. When the bishops lound the policy of the Joint Letter arraigned at Rome by parties in Canada whose names were withheld, they resolved to defend their action, and for that purpose they sent a delegation to Rome, consist- ing of Mgr. Lafleche of Three Rivers, and Rev. M. Lamarche. The delegates carried with them a petition signed by a number of priests, in which an attack is made on certain professors of the University of Laval for having objected to priests exercising undue influence in elections. No one is named, but M. Langelier, professor of law, is specially aimed at, he having been retained by M. Trem- blay as counsel in the Charlevoix election contest, the principal feature of which was that it was to test, for the first time, the right of the clergy to interfere in elections with all the authority of their sacred office. The petition ♦ See Mgr. Raymond, De I'intcrvention du prete dans I'ordre intellectuel et social. in THE BISHOPS CLAIMING POLITICAL CONTROL. 265 was drafted by the Rev. Alexis Pelletier, alias Luin;i. The petition makes it plain that the difficulty had arisen out of the Joint Letter. The petitioners claim that that letter and what has been done under it are justified by the decrees of the Provincial Councils. It describes 'fanatic Protestants and Liberals ' as the enemies of the petition- ers. There seems to have been a suspicion that ui the complaint made at Rome the University of Laval, or some of its professors, had had some hand ; for the peti- tion declares that that seat of learning contains men whom the clergy have always combatted. Armed with this petition, the Bishop of Three Rivers set out for Rome. On his return, he published Novem- ber I, 1876, in the form of a pastoral letter, a report of what he had done. The priests, he saj's, alarmed at the clamours raised against them for the exertion of undue influence in the elections tor the Province of Quebec in 1875, and the judicial proceedings with which they were threatened, saw that it was necessary to enlighten the faithful on questions of so much gravity. They conceived that the liberty of evangelical preaching was in danger. This led to the issuing of the famous Joint Letter by the bishops. Its appearance made a profound sensation, and caused menaces of proceedings against the priests to be uttered. Secret opposition to the Joint Letter was made. Doubts as to the accuracy of the doctrine contained in the episcopal manifesto had struggled into being. The reports made to Rome, by persons unknown to the bishops, Mgr. Lafleche characterizes as ' greatly exa.t^c^er- ated and entirely false, against the clergy of the whole Pro- vince.' But when he comes to particulars, we find that the clergy were merely represented as interfering ' in a manner altogether inconvenient in political elections, and as acting with a degree of imprudence that would com- promise the future of religion in ^he country.' If IKS r^t 366 ROME IN CANADA. When, in response, Cardinal A. Franchi, Prcfet of the Congregation of the Propaganda, wrote to the Archbisliop lor precise information on the subject, tiie bishops felt the necessity of defending themselves ; and the delegation was sent to Rome to reply, on behalf of the clergy, to these charges. Those by whom they had been preferred had sent to the eternal city no advocate to sustain them ; and Mgr. Lafleche found that he was not confronted by any one by whom his statements could be questioned. This greatly facilitated the work of justifying the clergy which he had undertaken to perform. He drew up a memorial, founded on official documents, disciplinary rules, pastoral letters, mandements, and decrees of Pro- vincial Councils, the instructions which the bishops had for more than twenty years given to the clergy, as well on their duties as citizens and in the political arena as on their religious obligations, and on the rules of conduct traced for the clergy in respect to these duties. The bishop obtained a victory. The Prefet of the Pro- paganda, after read ir.g this memorial, told its author that the teachings which had been arraigned ' were perfectly conformable to those of the Holy See, of which they were the faithful and often the textual echo ; that the rules of conduct prescribed for the clergy as to the way in which they should instruct the faithful in the fulfilment of their political duties were also very wise, and that both had received the approbation of the Holy See in the de- crees of the Provincial Councils,' which can only take effect after they have been sanctioned at Rome. In going back a period of twenty years, it would be easy for the bishop to exhibit a state of things quite different from that which now exists. The fidelity of the picture, as a representation of the present, can only be known by a careful inspection. But the scandal which the publica- tion of these conflicting documents would occasion will, we may be sure, be avoided. THE BISHOPS CLAIMING POLITICAL CONTROL. 267 The emissary of tlie Ultramontaiies, in his memorial, combatted the ' liberal doctrines' wiiich attempts had been made to propagate amongst the French Canadians ; and showed how the bishops, presumably by a rigtnous censorship of the Press, had prevented their expression. In a separate memorial, the bishop went into an exposi- tion of liberal doctrines since 1848, quoting from the journals and speeches in which they had been advocated, and pointing to the acts of the leaders of the party, with theview of showing that the bishops in combatting Liber- alism had only pertormed a necessary duty. ' He brought before the notice of the Pri'fet of the Propaganda the at- tacks which the Joint Letter had encountered. His Eminence replied, the reporter tells us, that the doctrine contained in that document is ' perfectly sound, and con- formable to the teachings of the Holy See.' As that letter orders the cures to instruct the electors how to vote, at political elections, and to visit the crime of refusal M^ith spiritual censures, the See of Rome lias placed itself in direct conflict with the civil law of Canada as inter- preted by the highest court in the country. Cardinal Franchi laid before Pope Pius IX. a brief statement of the case, which probably afterwards formed the substance of the brief which contains the decision of this infallible Pontiff. The pro-Secretary of the Propa- ganda also drew up an address to the same august person- age, with the view of enabling him to pass an eulogy on the Canadian episcopate. Mgr. Lafleche had a long au- dience with the Pope, and drew up a written statement of the case for his information. It was in reply that the brief of the Pope w-as addressed to the Bishop of Three Rivers. In communicating this Papal document to the clergy of his diocese the bishop says : ' You will there see that the infallible head of the Church fully approves of the zeal of ^ ur first pastors in teaching you the holy doc- >.i * M J:l 368 ROME IN CANADA. trine, exposed by textual citation from their Pastoral Letter of September 22, 1875, and that His Holiness highly extols their zeal in combatting liberal errors,' be- sides renewing the condemnation of Catholic Liberalism. The bishop ends with an exhortation to the ur [)eople, as well as to all Europe, that for five years, owing to our misfortunes to our disasters, and perhaps alscj to our weaknesses, under the pretext of withheld mcjuarchical rights, and of the restoration ot this or that dynast}-, the true leader of the reactionary coalition, the authority and guide of all those dangerous combinations against the liberty and future prosperity of the country, was clerical- ism.' The ecclesiastical opinions of the reactionists of France are echoed with tremendous exaggeration among the French population of Quebec, as those of the Rouges of 184S — not one of the leaders of whom had then passed the age of 22 years — in the words of M. W. Laurier, 'were based upon those of the revolutionists of France.' Such is the inheritance which the sons of New France receive from their original mother country, whence their sires drew the maxims of a sturdy and independent Gallicanism. V ■1 UiiqS aya ROME IN CAS AD A. XIV. SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. At every election that has taken place since the joint pastiiral was issued, the parish priests at Quebec have made the walls of the sanctuary echo with the praise of one candidate or party and tiie censure of the other. They commence, as instructed by their superiors, by read- ing the joint episcopal letter, and proceed to coumient upon it at great length, returning to the charge on several successive occasions. Every sermon delivered between the issuing of the writ of election and the day of polling is a political harangue. Three striking illustra- tions of this procedure have occurred : in Chambly, in Charlevoix, and in Bonaventure. M. Lussier, the cure of Boucherville, one of the first on whom this new duty fell, did his best to avoid the necessity of reading the Joint Letter; b * he was at last obliged to act on peremptory orders of the Bishop of Montreal. This priest reports bne of the candidates. Doctor For- tier, as having announced himseli a Rouge and a Moder- ate Liberal. The attention of the Bishop of Montreal having been called to this fact, he wrote to the cure in these terms : ' Our Holy Father the Pope, and after him the Archbisiiop and Bishops of this Province, have de- clared that Catholic Liberalism is a thing to be regarded with the abhorrence with which one contemplates a pes- tilence : no Catholic is allowed to proclaim himself a Moderate Liberal ; consequently this Moderate Liberal cannot be elected a representative by Catholics.' iiiii SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT El.lCCTIONS. 873 II tho term Liberal Conservative had been used it would have been equally the duty of the bishop, as the agent of Rome, todei'iounce it. The Cuurricr dn Caitddii, with the aroma of tlic papal benediction about it, has dis- carded as altogether unauthorized the (jualifying word Liberal ; and announces itself Conservative, pure and simple. M. Lussier has reported at length the commentaries with which he accompanied the Heading (jf t''e Joint Letter ol the bishops.* From this explanation, we learn that the bishops did not issue their letter without some trepida- tion, foreseeing that it would excite hatred and passion (bien des liaines, bien des coleres). For this reason, AL Lussier would have avoided the reading of the letter i he could. He personally visited the bishop and stated that he had read to the parishioners his lordship's pastoral letter ; on which the bishop remarked, ' You have done w>dl.' The cure asked what more there was for him to do. The bishop replied, * You are to read the letter of the bishops.' ' But,' resumed the cure, ' permit me to say that I fear to excite the murmurs of some of the parish'o-iers.' ' We must not fear to speak the truth,' the bishop said, by way of command ; • in desiring to be too prudent we compromise ourselves.' The letter was read, in pursuance of the bishop's direc- tion. When the priest came to the phrase, ' The State is in the Church, and not the Church in the State,' he undertook to refute 'the maxim invented by Liberalism , " A free Church in a free State." He told the parishioners what would be the penalty of their refusing to obey his directions. • I explained,' he says, ' how the Church deals with error ; I said she commences by pointing out tiie See the Nouveau-Monde, Feb. i, 1876. 1 \ • m ii iii ) III . f^^ nsiii ^'mX3 i^Mtt^HJ f1 IH ' il mm '■ ^^^1 !■ ' 1 ' '■■ 274 ROME IN CANADA. danger; she puts tlie faitlitul on their guard against novelties ; she instructs, enHghtens, and exhorts them ; and if after this tliey remain in error and refuse to sub- mit themselves, she launches her thunders against them and declares them excluded from her bosom.' In this way M. Lussier interpreted and carried out his instruc- tions.* The sermon received the approval of the bishop. These threats, instead of being received with the abso- lute docility and submission Avhich the bishop"^ demand from the faithful, raised a storm of indignation : many per- sons, I\I. Lussier does not hesitate to state, went so far as to stigmatize the letter of the bishops as a menda- cious docimient ; conduct which the priest denounces as blasphemous. 'If,' he says, 'the bishops, speaking with the Pope, deceive themselves and say v/hat is not true, it follows that the Holy Spirit deceives himself and is a liar ; for it is he who has appointed the bishops to rule the Church of God.'f This is here a hopeful sign. In the opposition of the Roman Catholics themselves to the tyranny of the hiera- rchy lies the hope of a remedy : they alone can be the saviours of their own liberty. But i\I. Lussier, in obeying the commands of his super- ior, did not perform his task in a half-hearted or merely perfunctory manner. With whatever reluctance, he did his work thoroughly. He concluded his sermon in these words : ' It is necessary to explain myself clearly, for I see that many do not understand. The candidate who spoke last Sunday called himself a Moderate Liberal. As Catholics you cannot vote for him ; you cannot vote for a Liberal, nor for a Moderate Liberal for moderate is only another term for liar. One must be either Pro- * M. Lussier is a doctor of canon law, a distinction not often conferred. He re- sided many years at Rome, and there thoroughly inbibed the sj irit of the Vatican, i Lettre dc M. Lussier, J.m. 3, iiJ76. '\m SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 275 testant or Catholic ; you cannot remain Catholics with- out saying your prayers. When you recite the symbol of the apostles you say, " I believe in God and in the Holy Church, etc." Now the Church condemns Liberalism. You cannot remain Catholics and vote for a Liberal.'* What M. Lussier and ihe other parish priests of Cham- bly did the cures of Charlevoix were doing almost at the same time, and doing with a will. In this case, the facts have been disclosed by no less than one hundred and fitty witnesses, in an investigation before Judge Routhier, having for its object the annulling of the election, chiefly on account of the undue influence exercised by the priests. The trial lasted six weeks. The Charlevoix election took place in the beginning of the year 1876. The priests held a consultation to decide upon their candidate. The choice fell on M. Langevin, Conservative, the other candidate being M. Tremblay, a Liberal, so-called. In obedience to instructions, the cures read and commented on the Joint Letter; and sometimes the personal influence of the Archbishop was mentioned. The general drift of their remarks was that they were two flags : one blue, the flag of the Pope, the other red, the flag ol Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel. The red flag meant revolution and damnation, the worst evils that could befall anyone both in this world and the next. The blue flag meant present prosperity and eternal happiness. At least one priest terrified the electors by telling them that to vote for the partisans of the red flag would be to incur the guilt of mortal sin. Another told the electors that he, not they, was responsible for the use they would make of the elective franchise. Some of the cures preached several times on the sub- ject of the election ; and all of them reserved their greatest effort for the Sunday before the voting. M. * See I^ouveau-Monde, Jan. 23, 1876. i8 •■; t • ^ % ■^ If'" III ■i' 'ii'i'T!!'' ft; \ 276 ROME IN CANADA. Sirois, of Baie St. Paul, stigmatized the candidate of the red flag as a lalse Christ and a false prophet. If he succeeded in getting elected, tithes would be abolished, the priests would have to be supported by the Government, and the pressure of the taxation would become intolerable. The parishioners were as much bound to listen to the priest when elections were in progress as at any other time. Re- fusal to listen to to the cure on the question of voting was disobedience to the Pope. Liberalism must be crushed. If the electors listened to the false prophets a terrible chastise- ment would fall on the country, perhaps in the destruc- tion of the greater part of the harvest ; if the electors failed to listen to their cure, chastisements would speedily overtake them. The electors were, after all, to vote ac- cording to their conscience ; not simply according to their conscience, but ' according to their conscience, enlight- ened by the mandement of the bishops of Quebec' The simple peasants saw and noted the contradiction. The intelligence of the electors had been rated too low. A strange use was made of the word conscience. Not only was it represented that the conscience unenlightened by the instructions of the episcopate, was a conscience not at liberty to act ; it was at liberty to act when it was bound by these instructions, and was no longer free. If a man's conscience is not his own, and if it is not free, appeals to it are a mockery and a snare. The sermons of M. Sirois awakened many fears and changed many votes. M. Langlais, cure of St. Hilarion, told the electors that to vote for a Liberal was to set out on the road to hell. Is it a matter of surprise that the simple peasants, who repose unbouhded confidence in their priests, should have recoiled before so terrible a danger ? One witness swore that, after he was made aware of this terrible fact, he did not see how he could vote for M. Tremblay, the lUSJifclli 'mm '■ l''il . 'M SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 27 candidate of his choice. *My religious belief,' he said, * as a Catholic, is that those who act in opposition to reli- gion and their pastors go to hell when they die.' ' Of myself,' said the same witness, ' I knew nothing, and I relied on the instructions of one worthy ot confidence.' It was a common remark among the congregation, after they had left the church, that, according to the cure, the members of the Rouge party would infallibly be damned. Some who did not change their v->tes were frightened into abstention.* Another witness, ^ephirin Savard, thought one-third of the electors had been changed by the influence of the cure of St. Hilarion, exercised during a pastoral visit. This fact was probably not without its influence in moving the Archbishop of Quebec, in his pastoral of May 25, to prohibit the cures from discoursing on politics while on pastoral visits. ' I was afraid,' said one elector to another, ' that if I voted forTremblay, I should be damned.' Who- ever voted for the Liberals, sa'.d another priest, engaged in the service of hell. The fear of damnation, as the consequence of voting in a particular way, opsrated most strongly on the minds of the women, and they naturally influenced their husbands to avoid so great a danger. Some evidence contradicting, on some points, what had been said by the witnesses for the plaintiff was pro- duced by the defendant. The two points which the de- fence tried to make were, that the priests spoke as citi- zens and not in their official capacity of cures, and that they did not say that to vote in a particular way would be a mortal sin. On the latter point, the weight of the evidence was altogether against the priests. * Octave Simard, a witness, laid: Je nesais pas sic'eat pour avoir malcotnpris lu'i la sorti de I'eglise les gens en s'en retournant chez e<' . ont dit que le cure avait dit que les gens du parti rouge itaient tous danines. t'ar parti rouge on voulait parler du parti dc M. Treinb)ay. II y a dei electeurs qui m'vut dit qu'ili n'avait pas vote k cause de cci paroles du cur6. lllllliliii m U;- t [mm 278 ROME IN CANADA. But whatever objections may be made to the evidence lor the plaintiff, there is a kind of evidence, the statements of the priests themselves, which their defenders will have to accept without question. The cure of Ste. Fidele, in the justification of his conduct which he sent to the Arch- bishop, admits that he said : * If I had to pronounce on the present conflict, I could not, with my knowledge, do so in favour of a Government which calls itself Liberal, nor for any man who supports that Government.' The cure of St. Hilarion also sent in his defence to the Archbishop, in the shape of a statement of what he had said in his sermons, and to which he procured the attesta- tion of a number of his parishioners. His word of command was: 'Vote according to your conscience enlight- ened by your superiors. Do not forget that the bishops of the Province assure you that Liberalism resembles the serpent which crawls in the terrestrial paradise, to procure the fall of the human race.' * According to your bishops,' he further said, ' the Liberals are deceivers whom you will not follow unless you wish to be deceived. Liberal- ism is condemned by our Holy Father the Pope. The Church only condemns what is evil, and as Liberalism has been condemned Liberalism is evil : therefore you ought not to give your suffrages to a Liberal. So the bishops have openly declared.' The bishops had said that to vote in a certain sense was a sin, but that in fol- lowing the direction of the bishops they could not sin. It was not enough that a candidate should be a Catholic to merit their suffrages, for not only was the man to be con- sidered, but also • his political principles, as well as the principles of the Government he supports.' The cure reminded his parishioners that they would have to give an account to God, and he asked them whether in the hour of death they would like to find themselves on the lJi, ffii , ljW pgg :4\ SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 279 side of Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel or of the Sovereign Pontiff and his bishops. One priest, and one alone, the Rev. M. Cinq Mars, cure of St. Simeon, was heard as a witness. He protested, as required by his superiors to do, against the competence of the tribunal. But as the Archbishop had waived the question of immunity and authorized the summoning of the priests before the court, M. Cinq Mars did not refuse to appear or to give his evidence. He swore positively that he had not made the remark imputed to him. M. Cinq Mars produced the Joint Letter of the bishops as authority for what he had done and a command to do it. He had told the electors that the mandements of the bishops were binding sub grave, that is, under pain of a grave sin. It is easy to understand that for a parish priest removable at the pleasure of the bishop there might be only the alternative of obedience or starvation.* The priests, therefore, when they reluctantly carry out the orders of their superiors, are deserving of sympathy ; but when, in the blindness of their zeal, they go beyond these instructions, and have to defend their conduct before their ecclesiastical superiors, they pass the line of innocence and of what they can reasonably consider their duty. It is quite evident, from the effect which these sermons produced, that the priests in their political harangues from the pulpit went beyond the point to which they could carry their parishioners with them. What had happened in Chambly happened in Charlevoix. In his evidence regard- ing a sermon preached at Baie St. Paul, Boniface La Bouche said : • The sermon made so great a tumult that several ♦ No less than thirty-four changes of priests were madfe in the diocese of Quebec, in Septeriber, 1876, eighteen in the diocese of St. Hyacinthe, and twelve in that of Three Rivers. One curi in the diocese of Quebec, J. S. Martel, refused to accept the parish offered to him in exchange. In September, 1877, between thirty and forty changes were made in the diocese of Montreal, twenty-seven in the diocese of St. Hyacinthe, and between twenty and thirty in the diocese of Quebec. ^1 KM'. I: 'J 380 ROME IN CANADA. persons left the church, and four electors, heated by the sermon of the cure, fell to fighting after they had engaged in political discussion.' The sermon of the cure of St. Hilarion was found equally distasteful to the congregation before whom it was preached. Several persons, to mark their disapprobation of the political harangue, left the church betore it was concluded. At the end of the sermon the cure alluded to this tacit protest as a scandal, and said : * Woe unto him by whom scandal comes.' A knowledge of the opposition which these sermons provoked must have been a motive to the Archbishop to call the halt in his pastoral of May, 1876, which was so great a surprise at the time, when it was not understood. The temper of the laity had been tested in two constitu- encies, and it was evident that many electors were prepared to resent the clerical repression that had been put upon them. A long statement, purporting to be an analysis of the sermon of M. Sirois, cure of Baie St. Paul, which had been sent to the Archbishop, was put in, on the part of the defendant. The duty ol the electors, the cure had told them, was to follow his instructions. * While I, preaching sound doctrine,' he said, * am in communion with my bishop, you ought to listen to me and obey me ; I am here your legitimate pastor, and consequently charged to en- lighten, instruct, and counsel you ; if you disregard (me- prisez) my word, you disregard that of the bishop, that of the Pope, and that of the Saviour, by wtiom we are sent.' The Canadian law on the subject of undue influence is a copy of the English law. The principle of the English law applicable to the exercise of undue influence by the clergy was first laid down by Sir Samuel Romilly. * Undue influence,' he said, 'will be used if ecclesias- tics make use of their powers to excite superstitious fears SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 281 or pious hopes ; to inspire, as the object may be best pro- moted, despair or confidence ; to alarm the conscience by the horrors of eternal misery, or support the drooping spirits by unfolding the prospect of eternal happiness.' This precedent was followed by Baron Fitzgerald, in the Mayo contested election, 1857, and the election was annulled on the ground that spiritual intimidation had been made use of. Speaking of what the priest may '-o and may not do in this respect, the judge said : * He may not appeal to the fears, or terrors, or superstition of those whom he addresses. He must not hold out the hope ot reward here or herealter, and he must not use threats of temporary injury, or of disadvantage or punishment here- after ; he must not, lor instance, threaten to excommuni- cate or to withhold the sacraments, or to expose the party to any other religious disability, or denounce the voting for any particular candidate as a sin, or an offence in- volving punishment here or hereaiter. If he does so with a view to influence a voter, the law considers him guilty of undue influence As priestly influence is so great we must regard its exercise with extreme jealousy, and seek by the utmost vigilance to keep it within due and proper bounds.' The Joint Letter of the bishops of Quebec instructs the priests to do precisely what Baron Fitzgerald decided that the priests of Ireland cannot do. The judgment of Judge Routhier in the Charlevoix case has a striking family likeness to that which he de- livered in the cause of Derouin vs. Archambault, and which was reversed on appeal. The same false principles are encountered in both judgments. The second contains a quotation from the first, to the effect that the free ex- ercise of the Roman Catholic religion, stipulated for at the time of the conquest, implies the operation of the ec- clesiastical law of Rome in Quebec ; though the Privy 1 1 • ■ M ii'iiii iiiiiii M li T aSa ROME IN CANADA. Council holds, and Mgr. Destautels has expressed the same opinion, that the ecclesiastical law in force in that Province is the ecclesiastical law of France as it stood in the year 1759. France never could have intended to stipulate that Rome should enjoy, in the Province which was changing masters, privileges which she had herself refused to her, both at home and in the colony. Judge Rou- thier denies that the Crown, from which he holds his commission, could confer on him any jurisdiction in spiri- tual matters ; which means that he recognizes a higher law than the law oi the land which Parliaments and Legislatures enact. He undertakes to say, what no one could know, that if the priests had not interfered at all, the result of the election would have been the same. That the priest should not be the only person in the community forbidden to instruct the electors in their duty will readily be conceded ; and with ' the liberty of Christian preach- ing' no one, at this time of day, wishes to interfere. But there are many things which it is not permissible to do under pretence of exercising this liberty. What would be a libel out of the pulpit, is no way privileged in it ; and what would be illegal intimidation out of the pulpit does not change its nature when uttered in the pulpit. The priest is not denied the enjoyment of civil and political rights; but intimidation is not a right ; it is always and everywhere exercised in derogation ofthe rights of others. Voting, Judge Routhier says, is a moral act ; and we are asked to conclude that that fact brings the Catholic voter under the canon law of Rome, gives him over ab- solutely to the control of the Church in the perforn ince of this act, and ousts the Legislature and the civil tribunals of their respective jurisdiction. The priests, according to this doctrine, in acting as they did, were within the limits of their own domain, accomplishing their pastoral duties, as the guardians of morality, and did not encroach on SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. a83 the rights of the State, which has neither the authority nor the competence to deal with the matter. If these assumptions be accepted, it follows that the law under which the Galway election was set aside was no law at all. Ultramontane writers, we all know, teach that what the Church chooses to stigmatize as unjust laws, ' are violencesrather than laws, and do not bind theconscience.'* If a priest refuses the sacraments to an elector for having voted for the wrong candidate. Judge Routhier can only refer him to the bishop. But the priest had, in the whole, matter, acted in obedience to the orders of the bishop, or of the entire Episcopate of the Province. If you ask the wrong-doer to sit in judgment on his own act and that of his agent, what satisfaction do you expect ? Judge Routhier somewhat scornfully rejects English pre- cedents as inapplicable to a country where the hand of Rome is much more felt than in England ; and he holds that the text of the law of Quebec does not include priests in its denunciation of intimidation and undue influence. Let us see what would be some of the consequences of sustaining this judgment. The plain meaning of it is that the canon law of Rome, having superseded in this country the ecclesiastical law of France, must henceforth have unrestricted force and effect. Let us suppose the case of a person excommunicated for .le alleged offence, in the civil or political order, over wiiich the Church claims jurisdiction on the ground that a question of mol- ality is involved ; let us furt ler suppose that the victim remains under excomunicatijn for a year; he must then, by the canons of the Council of Trent, be regarded as a heretic.and be handed over to the tender mercieTof the In- quisition. If this were to happen, the civil power would, if Judge Routhier be accepted as authority, be unable v'ij * Brcwnson, Conversations on Liberalism «nd the Church. Rev. Alexis Pelle- tier. m 384 ROME IN CANADA. \'wm #11} «{' i' to protect the subject whose life was menaced for what, in the eye of the civil law, might be no crime at all. This is only one example of the thousand monstrosities which might be perpetrated if the canon law of Rome had full and unchecked course in this country. Ecclesiastical immunities would extend not only to persons but to pro- perty ; the orders ot t :e Pope would be binding on the faithful.whetherthey related to the spiritual or the temporal order. The civil laws would count for nothing,if the doctrine were accepted that the temporal power is subordinate to the spiritual power of the Pope; and short of this it is impossible to stop if the canon law of Rome is to be ac- cepted as having unrestrained force in Canada. It would have been easy to find Italian priests who would have re- jected with indignation these pretensions at a time when the League was spreading desolation through France, when Jacques Clement assassinated Henry III.,and French priests refused to pray lor the king.* In the Supreme Court, judgments were delivered by Mr. Justice Taschereau and Mr. Justice Ritchie. The former said that he and the other Catholic judges of the court felt themselves in a difficult position in consequence of the decision ot three eminent judges of the Superior Court of Quebec having been severely blamed by an eminent member of the Episcopate for a judgment which they had delivered in an almost identical case, a judgment which he regarded as an important precedent. If an Ultramontane bishop has already embarrassed the judges of the highest court in Canada, what may some future bishop not hope to achieve in the same direction ? Mr. Justice Taschereau held that the agency of the clergy whose conduct was complained of had been clearly proved. M. Langevin had only consented to become a candidate on an assur- ance, obtained through M. Gauthier, that the clergy ot * See Histoire ue Venise, par le Cotnte Uaru, livre XXIX., pp. 66-7. SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 285 the county would support him. After he entered on the campaign, and had held personal conferences with the clergy, he stated at public meetings that they were favour- able to him, and that the electors ought to listen to the voice of their pastors. Many cures denounced the opposing candidate in their sermons. These cuns, by taking part in the election with the consent of M. Langevin, became his agents. These sermons, Mr. Justice Taschereau held, created in the minds of many electors a dread of committing a grievous sin and being deprived of the sacramtnts. ' There *is here,' he said, 'an exerting of undue influence of the worst kind, inasmuch as these threats and these declara- tions fell from the lips of the priests speaking from the pulpit in the name of religion, and were addressed to per- sons ill-instructed and generally well disposed to follow the counsels of their cures.' He thought these sermons, though they may have had no influence on the intelligent and instructed portion of the hearers, must have influenced the majority of persons void of instruction. Although the secret mode of voting made it impossible to point to more than six or eight persons who had been influenced to vote against their natural inclination, it was proved that a large number changed their views through this undue influence. But proof of a single instance of the exercise of undue influence was sufficient to annul an election, though the candidate in whose favour it was exerted should have had an overwhelming najority of votes. Taking the evidence as a whole, Mr. justice Taschereau thought it was clear that a general system of intimidation had been practised, and as a consequence undue influ- ence exercised ; the electors did not consider themselves free in the exercise of the elective franchise. The court was unanimously of the opinion that the four cures, Cinq Mars, Sirois, Langlais, and Tremblay, had exercised ■^ 'I!iil| 286 ROME IN CANADA. undue influence, and that being agents of the respondent their acts bound their principal. The election was declared void, with costs against the respondent, less some part of the cost of printing. On the question of clerical immunity, which the advo- cate for the respondent had raised, the court expressed a very strong opinion, to which reference will be made when we come to deal with the immunitieb o.' ^'"' clergy. It had been contended, during the progress of this suit, that the Legislature, in adopting the English election law, never intended to debar the exercise of clerical terror and intimidation. To this objection Mr. Justice Ritchie replied. He said: 'On the principles of common law, on the construction of the language of the Act, of which we entertain no doubt, we cannot for a moment doubt that it is our duty to declare that undue spiritual influence is prohibited by statute.' The clergyman, like the layman, has the liberty of ' free and full discussion, solicitation, advice, persuasion ; ' but he ' has no right in the pulpit or out, by threatening any damage, temporal or spiritual, to restrain the liberty of a voter so as to compel or frighten him into voting, or abstaining from voting, other- wise than as he freely wills.' If he does so, the law regards the act as the exercise of undue influence. These judgments settle the law. What then follows? Seven of the bishops have expressed their confidence that they will be able to procure an alteration of the law ;* a confidence based on the readiness with which the Legis- lature of Quebec hastened, in a similar case, to yield to the demands of the Church. Nevertheless it is extremely improbable that the Dominion Parliament will be found to be equally compliant. This Act of the Local Legislature was intended to enable the bishops to inflict ecclesiastical * Declaration de Tarcheveque et des £veques de la Province ecclesiastique de Que- bec, au sujet de la loi electorale, Quebec, 26 Mars, 1877. SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 387 punishment for a refusal to bow to the decrees o! the Congregation of the Index and the Inquisition. An amendment to the election law, in these words, has been suggested : ' Nothing in the preceding provisions shall apply to the words of a minister of religion pronounced in the exercise of his duty as such.'f This is the new pro- gramme. The conflict between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities has taken a very definite shape. On one side is the highest judicial tribunal in the country, on the other the entire Roman Catholic Episcopate 'of Quebec, sanctioned by the express approbation of Pope Pius IX. The judgment in the Bonaventure election case deliv- ered by Judge Casault agrees 11 principle with that of the Supreme Court. The Provincial Act, under which thes>e cases come, is copied word for word from the 'Corrupt Prac- tices Prevention Act of 1854 ; ' and as it has several times been held to include this kind of intimidation, Judge Cas- ault thinks it would be an insult to the Legislature of Que- bec to assume, as Judge Routhierdidin effect, that its mem- bers v/ere ignorant of the facts. The argument, founded on tht treaty of cession, that Roman Catholic priests may trample on the civil laws because the French Canadians were guaranteed the free exercise of their religion, • as far as the laws of England will permit,' went for nothing. These words — 'as far as the laws of England permit' — seemed to the judge ' to restrict, in a very formal manner, what the defendant pretends to be one of the freedoms ol the exercise of the Catholic religion : that of being able, in preaching, to practise intimidation, and thus to limit, if not to destroy, the electoral franchise.' When the treaty was made, representative institutions had long existed in England ; and both • the lawof parliament and the common law consecrated absolute freedom in the ex- I m f Programme of the Nouveatt-Monde, in the Minerve Oct. a, 1877. I ' illi' Ihfl a88 ROME IN CANADA. ercise of this franchise. If it were possible that some- thing in the Catholic religion could be an obstacle thereto, this something would have been contrary to the laws of England, and would have been within the limit found in the treaty itself.' Attacks upon the liberty of the elec- tor were prohibited at the epoch of the treaty. The present law ' has not and cannot have the effect of res- training the exercise of the Catholic religion, or ot render- ing it less tree.' The intimidation proved to have taken place was prac- tised by two cures, named Thivierge and Gagne. To what the first said there were fifteen witnesses, and to what the second said eleven. The witnesses differed much, but without contradicting one another. ' It is con- ceivable,' said Juuge Casault, ' that the account given by illiterate fishermen and farmers of a sermon they heard a year before must be more than incomplete, and may perhaps be incorrect.' When it is considered that more than three-fourths of the French Canadians in the rural districts can neither read nor write, the influence of the priest must be almost omnipotent. Two priests alarmed the electors by stating that if they voted in a particular way they would incur the penalty of a refusal of the sacraments. For this menace the authority ot the diocesan was alleged. But this authorization, if it had really been given, would afford no warrant for the menace. Not only was the election annulled on account of the undue influence exercised by these two priests : M. Beau- chesne was disqualified because the judges conceived they were obliged to report • that these frauduJ )nt manoeuvres were practised with his knowledge and con- sent.' What Judge Routhier called the liberty of preach- ing, three other judges denounce as 'fraudulent manoeu- vres.' SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 289 ' ' » The court, comprising three jUdges, Messieurs Casault, McGuire, and McCord, unanimously declared that the clergy is at liberty to express its opinion on political questions ; but that the menace of spiritual penalties con- stitutes undue influence. Judge McCord held, that to escape disqualification for the words used by the priests in his presence it would have been necessary for M. Beauchesne to repudiate them in express terms on the spot. The question whether Judge Cassault should be de- prived of his chair in the University of Laval, for the offence of delivering this judgment was sent to Rome, and decided in his favour by the Sacred Congregation.* The reference of this question shows the liability of Canadian judges, who happen to be Roman Catholics, to be censured at Rome for judgments they may deliver. The Bishop of Rimouski, in a mandement of the 15th January, 1877, denounced the judgment of Mr. Justice Casault with defiant energy. He nev^r could have thought, he declares, that cuch a judgment could have been received in Canada otherwise than with universal reprobation. He finds that it sins by being in unison with several of the propositions condemned in the Sylla- bus ;t and he informs all concerned that Catholic judges cannot in conscience administer civil laws such as thatf which controls parliamentary elections in Quebec ; i they find any difficulties about the oath of office they have taken, he is ready with authority to prove that, in such a case, it does not bind the conscience ;| and he calls upon the Legislature to disclaim ever having intended to say what the words (. f the statute clearly express. With * Letter of Bishop Conroy, Apostolic Delegate to Canada, to the Archbishop of Quebec, Oct. 3, 187"'. t Props. XLI., XIII., LIV. t St. Lig. I, III., Nos. 146 et 176. 290 ROME IN CANADA. m him preaching includes the right of coercion, in so purely a ci^ il matter as the choice of parliamentary candidates, by a menace to refuse the sacraments to offenders. For the Church alone he claims the right to say what limits the priest may not overstep under the pretence of preach- ing. This claim, if conceded, would make the civil au- thority powerless to check one of the most dangerous forms of attack on the freedom of the elective franchise, or to punish libels uttered under the shadow of the sanctu- ary. Taking the expression • undue' to be equivalent to • illegitimate,' Bishop Langevin argues that nothing can Le undue which a priest has been commanded by his superiors to do; and that the destruction of the freedom of election, it effected under orders, 's a oious duty. In the priest, he sees not the master but only the dispenser of the sacrament ; and when the Church prescribes a refusal of sacraments, his duty is to obej'. The d rficulty is that the bishops have placed themselves in opposition to the civil law, which restrains no man's conscience and re- stricts no man's true liberty, and which is designed to secure the freedom of election. If we may judge by the tone and attitude assumed by Bishop Langevin, the Epis- copate is prepared to carry the conflict it has evoked to the bitter end. He is scandalized that we have arrived at — he ought to have said revived — the Appel conime d\Abus, though even this would scarcely be an accurate description of the actual proceeding. The question has been asked whether the clergy exer- cised an influence undue and condemnable when, in 1775, they denounced from the pulpit the attempt of the Ameri- can Congress, through its emissaries in the Province, to seduce the French Canadians from their allegiance; whether the pastoral letters of 1837, which had for their object to keep the Canadians from joining in the ins\irrec- tion, are to be placed in the same condemned category. ■"i '::, f 1 '^'^^1 ' \S I y exer- n 1775. Aineri- nce, to iance ; I- their 3\irrec- tegory. SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. igi There is no sort of parallel between the two classes of cases ; between counselling the people to be true to the national allegiance, in a moment of public peril, and de- nouncing ecclesiastical penalties against electors for vot- ing for this or refusing to vote for that candidate of this or that party. And though Bishop Lartigue, in his pas- toral of October 24, 1837, said: 'He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation,' he denounced no spiritual censures against those Avho took part in the rebellion, and did not authorize the priests to refuse them the sacraments. Nor has it been shown that any such weapons as are now used to compel obedience — and there could then be no question of voting — were resorted to b}^ the Canadian clergy in 1775. Instances might be pointed to in which, under the reign of the oligarchy, a Lower Canada Governor, acting nnder the inspiration of the dominant faction, tried to Dnipel a priest to prostitute his influence in favour of tho Government candidate ; in which, in Nova Scotia, priests were required to use the knowledge obtained, or which it was assumed they might obtain, in the confessional, to compel the restitution of stolen goods, in a particular case ; in which political parties sought the aid of bishops and priests in party cont2sts. But though these things are not to be justified, it cannot be denied that the clergy, once being tempted into the political arena, would soon tire of the ancillary poi^ition assigned to them, and come to defend their right to use their influence solely on belialf of the Church, which more or less remotely means themselves. But no government or party which invoked the aid of the Roman Catholic clergy ever asked them to make use of ecclesiastical penalties in its favour. Other sermons, respecting which there has been no question in the courts, have been quite as bad as those 19 -.-^' 292 ROME IN CANADA. regarding which evidence was given in the election trials. One such sermon was preached by the Rev. Alexis Pelletier, at Baie St. Paul, in 1876. It is necessary to salvation, he told the congregation, to accept all the teach- ing of the Pope without exception. He represented it as an act of grave culpability on the part of electors to criticize, censure, or treat with contempt, words addressed from the pulpit with a view of directing electors ' in the choosing of a candidate and of voting,' because 'these are the words of God.' That is, in plain English, a political harangue pronounced by a priest is to be taken as a mes- sage from heaven ! Still, Roman Catholic congregations do sometimes revolt against the priest when he delivers such a message, and what is more, ' treat him with a degree of rudeness, and even of brutality, which are no longer found among savages.' The lesson which a sensible man Avould draw from such an occurrence would be that the interference of the priest in secular affairs had been carried beyond the bounds of prudence. But this preacher claims that the Church has a right * to interfere with sovereign authority, which all are bound to respect,' in questions of legislation connected with the laying of taxes, the framing of tariffs, with immigration and colonization. And if laws contrary to the laws of the Church, and which, according to her interpretation, clash with the divine law, are passed, it becomes a duty to disobey them (nousdevons alors lui refuser obeissance). For 'the priest, however humble he may be, transmits ' to his hearers ' the teachings of Jesus Christ, and all, learned and ignor- ant, ought to receive them from his lips with proiound respect and perfect humility.'''' This has an important bearing on civil allegiance, and it raises the question whether we are to live under civil or ecclesiastical rule. These pastoral letters and political sermons mark the * Printed in Le Uianc-l'arlcur, 22 Aout, iS/C. I\ ','■ SPIRITUAL TERRORISM AT ELECTIONS. 2C3 trials. Alexis ary to teach- t as an iticize, d from in the ese are lolitical a mes- igations delivers with a I are no sensible be that lad been )i-eacher re with pect; m ftaxes, lization. ch, and A^ith the ley them le priest, hearers d ignor- ^rolound iportant question 1 rule, nark the strides which the Church of Rome in Canada has made since the conquest. Under the F'rench regime, the eccle- siastics of Canada were forbidden to read, or to cause to be read, either in the churches or at the church doors, any other writings than such as related to purely eccle- siastical matters. To the priest no one desires to deny the rights of the citizen. He is allowed to vote as well as to speak and write on political questions. When he oversteps the line of persuasion, and abuses the powers of his sacred office to constrain, by means of spiritual terrors, electors to vote against their natural inclination, he becomes amen- able to the law which guards the rights of the citizen from undue influence and intimidation. The law was not made specially for him ; its terms are general, and apply to all kinds of undue influence. In not ^xemptmg the priest from its purview, the law places him on the same footing as the layman. \U ■,i ;'■■, ■ . i-i";* 1 \ 294 ROME IN CANADA. XV. THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. The Roman Catholic Episcopate of Quebec forbids members of that communion to have recourse to the civil tribunals when they have suffered injustice at the hands of an ecclesiastic. ' The Church,' they say, ' has its tribunals, regularly constituted, and if any one believes that he has a right to complain of a minister of the Church he ought not to cite him before a civil tribunal but before an ecclesiastical tribunal, which alone is competent to judge of the doctrine and the acts of the priest. For this reason Pius IX., in his bull Apostolicce Scdis of October, 1869, declares to be under the excommunication major all who directly or indirectly oblige lay judges to cite before their tribunal ecclesiastical persons, contrary to the dispositions of the canon law.'* When the priest converts the pulpit into a political rostrum, under the direction of the bishops, it is natural that the latter should attempt to shield him from the con- sequences of his conduct by making inadmissible claims ol clerical immunity. In the Circular which accompanied the Joint Letter, they instruct the priests whenever called upon to answer, before a civil court, for an abuse of spiritual authority, to protest against the competence of the tribunal, and claim the right to have the case adju- dicated upon by an ecclesiastical tribunal ; and this, as we have seen, was done in the Charlevoix election trial. When the cures received these directions, they were at a loss to understand what was meant bv the words * Lettrt Pastorale des EiijiteSf Sept. 23, 1875. M: THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. »9S ' against the dis^Jositions of the canon law,' and they asked explanations. This led the bishops to undertake to answer, in another circular,-!- the question : * What, at present, are the dis- positions of the canon law with respect to persons and things ecclesiastical ? ' The Church, they say, while maintaining the principle of absolute immunity, is never- theless guided by the circumst?nces in which her children find themselves placed in different countries, and she tolerates what she cannot correct without exposing them to serious inconvenience. Benoit XIV. is quoted to prove that lay judges ougiit not to be permitted to hear spiritual causes ; and that wliilenew usurpations of the civil power on ecclesiastical immunities are to be opposed, the attempt to correct existing abuses is not to be made when it is evident that to do so would be useless and imprudent. The Quebec bishops define as strictly ecclesiastical causes those in which the ' defendant is an ecclesiastic or a member of a religious order, and the object in litigation is of a spiritual character, or is connected with something possessing that character, or with the exercise of some function of the ministry.' The rule laid down by the Second Council of Baltimore is adopted : that in case of a difference arising between an ecclesiastic and a secular person, the former is not to cite the latter before a civil tribunal unless the difficulty cannot be otherwise dealt with. And that Council exhorts the faithful to refer ecclesiastical causes to the decision of the bishop, instead of bringing them before the ci^'il tribunals. The Council adds that one ecclesiastic bring- ing another before a civil tribunal thereby incurs ecclc siastical censures. The Quebec bishops instruct the priests to exhort, in a general way, the faithful not to commence ];roccsses of t November 14th, 1875. : ■«> 296 ROME IN CANADA. this kind without having consulted their pastor, their con- fessor, or still better, the bishop, lest they should fall under the major excommunication fulminated by Pius IX. It is important to understand in what consist the ' regular ecclesiastical tribunals' of the Church of Rome, in the Province of Quebec, which, in the cases mentioned, are to supersede the civil courts. The tribunal, in the absence of a regular bishop's court [Ojfficialitc) must con- sist of the bishop or some person whom he has appointed to act for him, ' A bishop,' the Lords of Privy Council said in the Guil,pord case, 'is Ivvays a. judex ordiuarius, iiccording to the canon law., n}ciy hold a court and de- liver judgment if he has not appointed an official to rxt for him.' But the next sentence shows that the question v/hich the bishops can so deal with are confined to ' faith aiid discipline.' The Quebec bishops, however, go beyond these limits when they lay it down bror'idly that a layman is not at liberty to cite a pr.est before a civil tribunal. Their second circular would seem to show that they iound it impossible rigidly to maintain this position, for they produce author- ity for making exceptions. In the fifty-four days that elapsed between their first and their second joint circular, they probably received hints from the clergy taaL it would not be wise at present to bend the bow too far. Whatever relaxation of the rigid rule laid down is ad- mitted, it does not necessarily avert the s roke of the major excommunication. The sum of the m-.tteris this ; Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in the Province of Quebec who may have suffered injustice at the hands of an ecclesiastic, cannot appeal to vhe civil tribunals for justice, vdthout being in danger of incurring the mjoi excommunication. Most certainly the law of the land in no way countenances this pretension. There is no douot whatever about the law ; but there THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. 297 is sometimes a difficulty in its administration. A slander uttered by a priest in the pulpit, if it be iinmistakably directed against an individual, is no more privilef^cd than a slander uttered by a layman on the street. The tri- bunals of the Province of Quebec have placed this matter beyond the reach of doubt. In a recent case, the judges of the Court of Appeal were unanimous on this iioint, though ihey were not agreed on the weight which ought to be •^iven to tlie evi- dence in support of the allegations mr.de against the priest. A blacksmith residing at St. Ephrem, township of Upton, of the name of Richer, brought an action against the Rev. M. Renaud dit Blanchard, for slander uttered in the pulpit. The case was tried at St. Hyacinthe by Judge Sicotte, and was aecided in favour of the de- fendant. Subsequently it was taken before the Court of Revision at Montreal, where it was decided against the priest, by whom, however, an appeal was taken. The judgment of the Court of Revision was set aside, and the decision rendered by the Superior Couri in the first instance sustained. The pretension was set up. that as the alleged mjury committed by the priest consisted of words pronounced from the pulpit, he could not bo held responsible for their utterance. This doctrine Chief Justice Dorion did not accept ; he knew of no person who was above the law, or who could not be held resoonsible for his statements. Judge Uamsay, who decided in favour of the priest, upon the evidence, admitted that there was a good cause ot ac- tion, if the facts had been proved. The blacksmith com- plained of tv.'o diffeient species of slander, one uttered by the priest in private conversations, the other in a sermon. * The first question,' said Judge Ramsay, ' is, whether the cure designated Richer specifically or not, and if he did designate him, how far he was justified by the circum- 398 ROME IN CANADA. stances in doing so. Thr. rule is, that the denunciation must be general in its terms ; hut it comports with reason that there should be alimitto this. It would be extreme- ly inconvenient to name or designate a person from the pulpit, but it does not followtiiat the priest ought to con- fine himself to evil in general, from fear that the offen- der should be recognized by the denunciation.' This is certainly contrary to the principle of the law of libel. A person libelled is entitled to recover damages, though not named, if the general d-^scription given of him is such as to enable the public to hxupon him as the person intend- ed to be struck at. Judge Monk said : ' As to the right of the Court to ac- cord damages if malice had been shown, he had no hesi- tation in saying that comjicnsation would have been ac- corded. Any words uttered f^y a minister in the pulpit, having in view the suppression of vice, A\ere permissible. The priest could mak'j general remarks, and even allusions more or Ichs direct ; so long as he confined himself to his proper functions of spiritual guide and preceptor, he was not responsible. But if lie went beyond what was per- missible by his sacred mission, he became resjinnsible be- fore the tribunals for what he said.' Judge Sanborn thought the allegations against the priest were sufficiently proved. On the general principle, he said: ' \\'ithout doubt a priest or a minister has great latitude in denouncing vice or what he considers error, culpable habits of life or conversation and evil compan- ions. He is permitted to warn and put on their guard his hearers, and particularly those of whom he has charge, against whatever he believes to be contrary to good man- ners and religious life ; but this must be done in general leiins. His sacred mission does not authorize him, any more than any other man, individually to name and de- nounce a person as unworthy of confidence, or to order THF CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUMTY 29f» his hearers under severe pains not to frecjuent or visit his place of business.' Judge Sanborn referred to the case of Da'reau, in wliich the cure, in a sermon, had lickl up the seigneur of his parish to the contempt of his jiarishioners ; for wliich offence he was suspended from his functions during a period oi five years, besides being fined and obliged to make an apology. He was of opinion that the judgment of the Court of Revision, which awarded a hundred dol- lars damages and costs, ought to be confirmed. Not only is the law plain : the directions given by the bishop are directly contrary to the law. The antagonism of the two authorities, of which this is an example, pre- sents itself in numerous and increasing instances. Formerly the excommunication extended to the civil judges who heard causes which the Church forbade them 'o hear. A mollification has been made by the pre- sent Po])e, and it was made on the ground that the bull In i.'a'itii Doiuhii would have excluded Roman Catholics fii. n the judicial bench, while the interests of the Roman Cacholic Church required that they should sit there.* Some defenders of the Church laud the Popes lor hav- ing resorted to dissimulation and concealmenu on the question of immunities, when their pretensions were re- jected by the civil authority. j- Some Ultramontane journalists and pamphleteers give the rule laid down in the first of the two joint letters ul the bishops on the subject the most rigid interpretat'' They describe as liaving come under the major excom- munication all persons who, on a question of what they are obliged to pay to the priest, have recourse to a civil tribunal, instead of addressing themselves to the bishop. 5: ' See Le Nouvcau Moiidi\ December aS, 1S75. t Lh Revile Tht'ohf^iqite. ♦ Abbe Pelletier in Le Fianc-l'aikuy, Dec. 17, ifcjj. N^l 1 .' r % "-It $ 300 ROME IN CANADA. Others atlinit that these immunities are Hmited by specific excepti'.Jiis, inchuling : feudal causes ; personal property f^iven toecclesiastics under the reserve of civil jurisdiction ; causes arisincf out of the exercise of a civil employment by the ecclesiastic. And they add that a clerk who hns cited a layman before a civil tribunal may himself in turn be subjected to the same treatment by his adversary, and an ecclesiastic who succeeds to the position of a lay- man who was already before a civil tribunal is exclude*! from immunity. As part of the immunities claimed, these bishops have given sufficient notice of their ii.tention to oppose any tax on the property of the Church. It is dif- ficult to estimate what proportion of the immovable pro- perty of the Province of Quebec the Roman Catholic Church ma^ not acquire. All experience shows that, wherever the power of acquisition is almost or wholly unchecked, tlie property held in mortmain rapidly in- creases. In Italy every vestige of clerical immunities is being swept away, that of freedom from liability to serve in the army being the last to go. Clerical immunities will spread over an infinitely wider space than that which we have indicated, if for a while the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of the Province of Que- bec obtain that absolute cont'ol of political power at which they are aiming. Let us see what would be the effect of admitting tlie claim of immunity for the exercise of undue clerical in- fluence in parliamentary elections. In their joint letter ot September, 1875, the bishops contend that, in certain cases, ' the priest and the bishop may in all justice, and ought in all conscience, to raise the voice, to signalize the danger, to declare with authority that to vote in such a sense is a sin, that to perform such an act exposes to the censures oi the Church.' THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IM.MVSITY. 301 When a priest rigorously carries out those instructions, what chance of justice would the injured candidate ha^•e in an apjieal to one of the bishops under whose directions the priest had acted? The bishop would, in fact, be de- cidinc; in his own cause ; for as the instigator of the act of the priest he would be more responsible for it than the man who believed himself bound to obey the ord^ir of his superior. The only chance of justice, in such a case, lies in an appeal to the civil tribunals. Tiiere is manifestly a strong dislike on the part of per- sons who have suffered under this ft^rni of injury to apply to the civil tribunals for redress. The Archbishop ai Quebec was recently called upon to adjudicate in a case ot thi'^ nature. M. Hector L. Langevin complained that, in the heat of the Cliarlevoix election contest, in which he was candidate, two priests. Revs. MM. Audet and Saxe, had done him great injustice. The charge was that they had written private letters which contained ' an odious calumny and an infamous libel.' These private letters were publicly read ; and M. Saxe, when asked by the Archbishop to explain, denied that he used the words attributed to him. The Archbishop then applied to !M. Tremblay, by whom the letter had been read in public, to forward the original for comparison ; and receiving for reply that neither the original nor a cop). had been kept, the Arch- bishop declared himself incapable of deciding upon the complaint, since it was impossible to ascertain tlie real facts. Of this decision we see no ground for complaining. What is worth notice in connection with the case, is that one of the candidates voluntarily makes the bishop the judge of the alleged misconduct of the priest in an elec- tion conr.'-"~st, and the other candidate, before venturing to appeal to the civil tribunals, takes the case to Rome. In 3oa ROME IN CANADA. J m his letter to the Archbishop announcing his determina- tion to appeal to Rome, M. Tremblay, who had also made complaints of the conduct of a number of the cures, the great majority of whom were opposed to him, states that he had in vain demanded to be heard before a regular ecclesiastical tribunal, where he could produce witnesses and plead his cause ; but that after the lapse of a con- siderable time he had not received any reply. In these letters he asked permission of the Archbishop to bring his complaints before the civil courts, if he could not have the case heard before a regular ecclesiastical tribunal. There is no reason in law why M. Tremblay should not, in the first instance, have cited the priests of whose conduct he complained before the civil tribunals. But he probably feared that in doing so he would incur the major excommunication ; that penalty being denounced against those wlio have the temerity to seek to obtain redress tor tin injury done by an ecclesiastic by citing the offender before the civil tribunals. The references made to the ecclesiastical authorities in these cases — for there are two distinct complaints — are just what the Church of Rome would naturally desire. In the first place, the Archbishop is recognized as the proper judge to dispose of a case which tlie complainant had the legal right to bring before a civil tribunal ; and then the other party to the election contest, who preferred a similar complaint, expressed a desire to be allowed to carry it before a regularly consti- tuted ecclesiastical tribunal, presumably in the nature of the Officialitc. There is an implied objection to the mode in which the Archbishop proceeded. He certainly tried to put himself in a position to test the accuracy of the complaint made by M. Langevin ; but when he was in- formed that the original letters had been destroyed and no copies kept, he did not pursue the subject farther. But this was not the point of M. Tremblay's complaint. THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. 303 His complaint was, that to the three letters he had writ- ten he had received no reply. The delay may have been caused by a reference to Rome, and wlitn M. Tremblay's complaint reached there he may have been anticipated. If candidates for parliamentary position who have suf- fered from an undue exertion of clerical influence, and to whoiTi the civil tribunals are open, are deterred by the menace <■■( ecclesiastical censure from having recourse to them, and are to be cowed into submitting their complaint to the arbitrament of a bishop, an archbishop, or the Congregation of the Propaganda at Rome, it is plain that the rights of a large class of Her Majesty's subjects in the Province of Qutbcc willbe placed on a new and peril- ous footing. It would not, we presume, require many re- petitions of the demand made by M. Tremblay for the con- stitution of a regular ecclesiastical tribunal before which to take such cases to cause the wish of the applicants to be gratified. Were such courts once established, the tendency would be to draw to them an increasing num- ber of cases, including mixed as well as such as are of a purely ecclesiastical character. The Chambly, the Charlevoix, and the Bonaventure elections illustrate what sort of justice might be expected in election causes from regularly constituted ecclesias- tical tribunals. The parish priests were compelled to read from the altar the pastoral letter in which the bishops au- thorized the clergy to threaten with the censures of the Church those who should be guilty of voting for the wrong candidate. And the bishops would have to decide whether the act they had authorized, and in some cases compelled reluctant priests to perform, called for their censure or approbation ! M. Langevin admitted practically, and M. Tremblay in terms, the claim of ecclesiastical immunities which the bishops put forth in their joint circulars last year. 304 ROME IN CANADA. I r ■i: 'I Tlie appeal which M. Tremblay makes to Rome appear-, to be somewhat in the nature of a case ot ' devolution,' the Archbishop having neglected to act. The case is not one that could have been appealed to Rome when Ca- nada was imder the French dominion. Nor could the intimidation which has since been proved to have been practised have occurred while Canada was a French colony, and if it had . jurred it could not have come before any other than a civil tribu- nal. The complaint of M. Tremblay is that he has been the victim of slander, and if this be true, the same remedy which tlie blacksmith of Saint Ephrem sought in a like case was equally open to him. How the superior courts would deal with offenders such as M. Tremblay de- scribes he could from the first have had little reason to doubt. But if men, smarting under injuries of this kind, are deterred from appealing to the protection of the law, Roman canonists will begin to revive preten- sions which were never admitted in France, and we shall hear once more that contracts confirmed by an oath and questions of usury are properly excepted from lay juris- diction. At last the discovery was made that the question of undue influence exercised by a priest at an election may be enquired into without citing the offender before a civil tri- bunal. Thus a means was found by which an aggrieved candidate could insist on his rights without fear of incur- ring the major excommunication. It v/as then that i\I. Tremblay brought his complaint before a civil tribunal. The exercise of undue influence is liable to be visited with a penalty of two hundred dollars; and a priest found guilty of the offence may be punished by the imposition of that fine. If there were a public prosecutor, whose duty it would be to take the initiative in such cases, he could not escape. But neither in the Charlevoix nor the "^'■. "*! THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. 305 Bonaventure election did any punishment fall on the offending priests. Judge Routhier, before whom the trial took place, had previously exposed his views on the main question when he delivered his yadgment in the case of Derouin against Archambault, in which he laid it down ' that a layman who asserts that he has been defamed by a cure, in a sermon delivered from the pulpit, cannot sue for damages in civil tribunals for defamation ; preaching being a mat- ter essentially ecclesiastical,' There, ccuid, therefore, hardly be a doubt what ground his judgment would pro- ceed upon in the Charlevoix contest.* But the Court of Appeal corrected the omission, and overthrew the principle which Judge Routhier had set lip. ' These principles,' said Judge Mondelet, ' or rather these pretensions,' speaking of Ultramontanism in the bulk, ' are in contradiction to the jurisprudence of the country, and should no longer be a subject of discussion.' ' Priests, bishops, and all ministers of religion,' he added, ' must be subject and obedient to the law and respect the rights of citizens.' 'The pretensions of the cure appear to me exorbitant; but the judgment which dismisses the action enunciates a doctrine subversive of all the rights of the citizen, and is calculated to put the priest above the law.' This priest had gone to the extent of telling the congregation to drive one of the inhabitants of the parish from his home. * Here,' said Judge Johnson, ' is a man of high position, who, on a public occasion, injures his neighbour in what appears to me to be a gross and unne- cessary manner ; and, instead of his situation shielding him, it may fairly be said to add to the injury, for the * Judge Routhier imflicted three fines will-, the altcrri,-\M'vf nf imprisonment on jour- nalists—and one journalist, M. Tarte, of Le CanadUn, was imprisonea fur thirty d.i\ ., — for being too free in their comments on the Charlevoix election contest while the trial was in progress: No priest has yet suffered in that way fur his too great licer.se 01 speech. 306 ROME IN CANADA. influence and authority of a parish priest are and ought to be considerable.' The success of the crusade of the Roman CathoHc clergy against civil liberty would blot out the individuality of the citizens as completely as it would have disappeared in the imaginary Republic of Plato, in the Jtopia of Moore, or in the Phalansture of Fourier. Many illustrations might be given to show how clerical immunit}^ from the jurisdiction of the civil courts would work in actual practice. When an election contest was going on in Soulanges, in the summer of 1875, M. Doutre wrote to an elector of the county to protest against the Roman Catholics bandmg themselves together and taking tlie Syllabus for their programme. To do so, he thought would create a very serious public danger. ' The Syllabus,' he reminded his correspondent, 'proscribes every form of worship except Catholicism, and decrees that physical force may be resorted to to arrive at an imiformity of worship.' What happened ? The Bishop of Montreal wrote a letter to M. Doutre's correspondent, which obtained in- mediate publicity, and in which he characterized M. Doutre's letter as ' blasphemy ' against the S'''Uabus, and intimated that the writer merited the ensure of the Church, and might expect to meet the frown of the Sovereign Judge when he is taken from th"3 world. Under such encouragement as this, there is no con- ceivable degree of license which the parish priests would not think themselves juL-tified in using. If in their denun- ciations they uttered serious and damaging libels against M. Doutre, and his only remedy lay in an appeal to an ecclesiastical tribunal, what measure of justice could he expect to obtain from the bishop's court ? But is the priest to be divested of his rights as a citi- zen ? Is he not, as a citizen, and outside of the Church, to be allowed to utter a word on politics ? No one, so THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. 207 a citi- lurch, Ine, so far as our observation goes, has expressed a desire to de- tract from the rights of a priest in his character of a citi- zen. The objection is to his using the influence ol his sacred office and the terrors of spiritual censures for the purpose of deciding a political election in favour of a particular candidate or of a particular party. The bishops, in one of their joint letters of 1875, say : * There are political questions in which the clergy can and ought to interfere in the name of rchgion.' They also say: ' It belongs to the Church,' presumably meaning thereby the bishops, * to give its ministers such instruc- tions as it may think suitable.' The questions in which they may interfere are described to be all those which have any bearing on faith or morals. And candidates may be judged on grounds wholly separate from their ex- pressed opinions. A candidate may be condemned by his antecedents, which no doubt fairly make an element in the estimation of character. But, under this rule, a man might be held lasponsible lor opinions which he had long since discarded. He may be judged by the ante- cedents of the leaders of the party to which he is attach- ed ; by the opinions of its principal members ; by those of the press which speaks on its behalf. Here a wide and dangerous latitude is given to the clergy, in their dealing with candidates for political position. The practical ef- fect is to treat all changes of political opinion as in- sincere, and all supposed political offences as unworthy of moral amnesty. An army of over a thousand priests now acting under the inspiration of these instructions, and having it in their power to make and unmake the political fortunes of the majority of the candidates in the Province of Quebec, might, if the immunity contended for were granted, in- flict upon individuals serious injuries, for which there would practically be no remedy. 20 iiMllii . a mi 308 ROME IN CANADA. In Ontario, the question of ecclesiastical immunities is permitted to lie dormant. The Ultramontanes of Que- bec, however, tell us that that Province is subject to the canon law of Rome, and point to the renewal of the major excommunication by the present Pope as proof that this penalty hangs over the head of any Roman Catholic who does not respect these immunities. And this, though it is true that the Unitea States, by special authority of the Pope, were, in 1837, exempted from the penalty of excomniunication for the refusal of clerical immunities.* The Supreme Court, in the Charlevoix election case, vhe judgment being delivered by Mr. Justice Taschereau, met the claim of clerical immunity which had been set up by saying that • the tribunal which is to take cogni- zance of the contestation of an election is indicated by law.' As for the ecclesiastical tribunal, he added, ' for me it is intangible, non-existent in this country, being in- capaMe of existing effectively therein but by the joint ac- tion of the episcopacy and of the civil power, or by the mutual consent of the parties interested, and in the lat- er case it would be only in the form of a conventional arbitration, which would be binding on no one but the parties themselves. If this tribunal exists, I am not aware that it has any code of law or procedure ; it would have no power to summon the parties and the witnesses, nor to execute its judgments. And if it exist- ed, it would be very singular to see the Jew seeking at the hands of a Catholic bishop the justice he can claim from theciv^il tribunals, and submitting to corporeal punish- ment adjudged by that tribunal ; and the same might be said of any other individual belonging to a different reli- gion.' What was aimed at in the Charlevoix contestation was that the election should be declared void on account • Le Franc-Parltur, Jan. 7, 1876. ill ii ' ••'1 THE CLAIM OF CLERICAL IMMUNITY. 309 of the exertion of undue clerical influence ; and no ec- clesiastical tribunal could either have annulled or con- firmed the election. After forty years' practice at the bar of Quebec, and sitting as a judge, Mr. Justice Taschereau said he had now heard for the first time what he signal- ized as the * extraordinary opinion ' that a Catholic priest, speaking from the pulpit, may defame whomsoever he pleases, and then shelter himself from responsibility by pleading immunity. 'Such,' said the judge sententi- ously, ' is not the law ; such it was not up to the time of the judgment (Routhier's) in question. The most ancient as well as the most modern authors repudiate this doc- trine.' 'As for me,' he added, 'my oath of office binds me to judge all matters which are brought before me ac- cording to law and the best of my knowle*. ge. The law expressly forbids all undue influence, from whatever source it may arise, and without any distinction. I must carry out this law fully and entirely conformably to the Act.'* Therefore the bishops and their organs in the press de- mand the alteration of the law ; they seek to import into it that principle of clerical immunity which, in the words of Mr. Justice Taschereau, 'the most ancient as well as the most modern authors repudiate.' The wishes of the bishops are equal to a command to the faithful ; and it necessary this command can be reinforced by a direction from a Roman Congregation to do or not to do a particular thing. ♦ Mr. Justice Taschereau is brother of the Archbishop of Quebec, the author Joint Letter. ■11 II 310 ROME IN CANADA. XVI. THE CO .GRE^^A^TiON OF THE INDEX AND TIUv INQUISITION. More than half a century ago, the parish priest of Longueuil foretold, in a voice of solemn warning, the ca- lamities that would fall upon Lower Canada if the Roman canon law were substituted in that Province ior the ec- clesiastical law of France; and much of what he said has been realized to the letter. 'You would then,' he says, ' be obliged to recognize the authority of the Inqui- sition, and the power of the Pope to establish a similar in- stitution in this country; you would recognize the author- ity of the Congregation of the Index, and when that took place multitudes would be excommunicated for having read without permission prohibited books 1 You would admit the iamous bull /n C'wa Z)ownwi, though it has ceased to be published at Rome since the advent of Clement XIV. to the Pontificate ! You would admit the bull Unam Sanctum of Boniface VIII., which asserts the spiritual and temporal sovereignty of the Popes over the empires and kingdoms of the earth. You would admit without exception all the decrees of the Council of Trent which have reference to ecclesiastical discipline, though many of them were never received in France, because they were in opposition to the royal authority and the laws and usages of the kingdom.' The members of the Institut-Canadien, against whom Bishop Bourget launched a general excommunication, have realized, in their own persons, the truth of that part of T,'1E IKDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 3" the predictivm which refers to p' >hibited books. Owing to a defect of form, the excommunication was not legally valid ; but it was not, o:. tnat account, without effect on the fortunes ''the institution against which it was di- rected. The fear of remaining under a condemnation which presented frightful terrors to the Roman Catholic mind caused numbers to quit their connection with the Institute. The effect was to cut off a large part of its revenue, impair its energies, and lessen its influence. T: is now struggling under a load of debt, for thecancelliu;^ of which no efficient means has yet been provided. > has been stated, on authority which there is no v( n to dispute,* that not a single Catholic member of Pc.rlia ment was, in April, 1876, a member of the Institute. B jhop Bourget found no difficulty, till the que. .;c n came before the tribunals, in substituting the Roman for the Quebec ritual in the diocese of Montreal ; but his at- tempt to replace the ecclesiastical law of France by the canon law of Rome in the Province of Quebec has not been successful. After a book has been put in the Index, ' from that moment no one, not even a bishop, is allowed to read it without special permission, which no one but the Pope can give.'t There have been Catholic authors who could console themselves under the weight of this censure. ' If,' said Pascal, ' my letters are condemned at Rome, what I con- demn is cnndemned in Heaven.' The President of the Institut-Canadien, in his address delivered, in 1868, in favour of tolerance, would, if interrogated, no doubt say the same thing. No distinction is made between Protes- tants and Catholics ; the former have no more right than mt * M. Otcar Dunn, f Bishop Bourget. Littn Pastorale, 30 Avril, i8jS. ;i; ' 312 ROME IN CANADA. ' m K ■ the latter to have in their possession a condemned book.* Let us take a look into the Holy Office at Rome, and see the machinery by which books are condemned. The Congregation of the Holy Office is composed of several cardinals, a prelate of the Roman Court, called an Asses- sor or Reporter, a Dominican Brother, who is the Com- tnissaire-ne, an unlimited number of doctors of canon law called Consulters, and several learned theologians, to whom the name ot Qualifies is given. All the members of the Holy Office are appointed by the Pope. When a book is denounced to the Holy Office, one of the Consulters is charged to examine it. If the reputa- tion of the author is great, the work is examined by a second censor, to whom the name of the first is unknown, but the result of whose examination is communicated to him. Naturally, these doctors, like other men, sometimes differ as to what is good or bad, moral or immoral, dan- gerous or harmless ; and then the fate of the work is com- mitted to the arbitrament of a third censor, from whom the names of the previous two are concealed. The report being made, is presented to the Consulters, who in the preparatory Congregations express their opinions on the work, of which their knowledge is wholly derived from the statement before them. Some member of the con- gregation goes through the mockery of defending the work ; but it is not probable that any author was ever benefited by such a defence. If the author were entitled to defend his work before the Congregation, he would scarcely choose for that office a member of the society whose special business it is to put books under the ban ol the Index. * Encore si, JiTEvechi on se bornait ik interdire aux Catholiques seuls la lecture des livres de la bibliothieque de I'Institut Canadien, mail on reclame jurisdiction meme sur la conscience des Protestants -.—Jugtmcnt rendu par son Honncur It Jugc UonUelit in re Guibord, Lundi le 2 Ma,i, 1870. \i- THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 313 When judgment has been pronounced, it requires the approbation of the Pope before it is put into execution. To obtain the assent of the Pope, the prelate called the Assessor acquaints his Holiness with all the proceedings that have taken place. Frequently the Pope himself pre- sides at the Congregation of the Holy Office, andlistensto what the cardinals have to say on any book brought be- fore them. But it Is obvious that the real fate of the book is in the hands of the censor or censors by whom it is examined. Considering the enormous multiplication of books throughout the world, and the proportion of them likely to be denounced to the Holy Office, that institution has plenty of work on its hands. When it was found neces- sary to divide the labour, to which the Holy Office was unequal, the 'Sacred Congregation of the Index ' was created ; its function is confined exclusively to the exam- ination of suspected literature. Its organization and pro- cedure are nearly the same as chose of the Holy Office. f The Annuaire of the Institut-Canadien for 1868 fell under the censuie of the Congregation of the Index. By this decretum the faithful were forbidden to be members of the Institute while it taught what were condemned as pernicious doctrines, or to publish, read, or possess the Annuaire. Bishop Bourget, in a pastoral letter dated at Rome, in the August of 1869, gave warning that if any person still persisted in keeping in his possession the condemned book, or continued his connection with the Institute, he would be deprived of the sacraments, even in the article of death. The Institute staggered under this blow, and b)' a formal resolution declared its unconditional submission to the decree of the Congregation of the Index ; but it denied the accuracy of the alleged facts on which its condemna- f Bishop Bourget. L*ttre Pastorale, 30 Avril, i8j8. ! i S»4 ROME IN CANADA. tion had been based. It declared that its objects were purelj literary and scientific ; that there wa.i no doctrinal teaching within its walls, and that it carefully exchided the teaching of pernicious doctrines tiierein. The Institute gained nothing by this act of partial sub- mission, and it sacrificed logic to a desire to bring about an accommodation. If the alleged facts on which it was condemned were not true, the Institute yielded too much by a submissive acceptance of the decree. Bishop B( > urget is of too unyielding a temper to accept, in such a case, anything less than the most absolute submission. It was he who had first opened fire upon the Institute ; it was he who had secured its condemnation, and the condem- nation of the Anuuaire, at Rome; and he was not now likely to be satisfied with a half victory, which wuuld have left upon him the stigma of having misrepresented the facts. He had been storming the fortress of the Insti- tute during a period of twelve years, and he would accept nothing less than an unconditional capitulation. In the spring of 1857, an attempt had been made to con- quer the Institute by force ota cabal among its own mem- bers. A minority of the members had proposed to amuse themselves and gladden the heart of the bishop by a \\iGra.vy atito da fe ; but the majority, having less respect for the decrees of the Inquisition and a greater regard for literature, objected. At the same time, they resolved : • That the Institute has always been, and is, alone compe- tent to judge of the morality of its library, the adminis- tration of which it is capable of conducting without the intervention of foreign influences.' The bishop pronounced this to be grave error, and referred to a decree of the Council of Trent to prove that he was the proper judge of the moral character of the books, and that any one who should read or keep in his possession heretical books would incur the penalty of excommunication. The Church THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 3«5 having, as the bishop assumed, pronounced an excom- munication, he was saved the trouble of performing that act. Tliis appeal to a decree of the Council of Trent was an attempt to set aside the Gallican liberties and the civil law in favour of Rome. ' It is,' said the Lords of the Privy Council in the Guibord case, which arose out of the ex- communication of the Institute, ' a matter almost ol common knowledge, certainly of historical and legal fact, that the decrees of this Council, both those that relate to discipline and to faith, were never admitted in I'rance to have effect propria vigore, though a great portion of them have been incorporated into French Ordinances. In the second place, France has never acknowledged nor re- ceived, but has expressly repudiated, the decrees ot the Congregation of the Index.' And again: 'No evidence has been produced before thrirLordships to establish the very grave proposition that Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Lower Canada have consented since the cession to be bound by such a rule as it is now sought to enforce, which, in truth, involves the recognition of the authority of the Inquisition, an authority never admitted but always repudiated by the old law ot France. It is not, therefore, necessary to enquire whether, since the passing of the 13 Geo. III., c. 83, which incorporates (s. 5) the ist of Elizabeth, the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen could not legally consent to be bound by such a rule.' This is tht udgment of the highest judicial authority in the British Eriipire. A different opinion had, however, been expressed '^y Judge Mondelet in one of the long series of trials to which this case gave rise. ' The Council of Trent,' he said, ' is received in Canada. The Church, though universal, has not been able to get the authority of this Council admitted either in France or the United 1 1 m ■ T - 316 ROME IN CANADA. States.' That it is not admitted in Can?ida is now settled beyond the possibility of recall. There is no reason to conclude, however, that this Council will cease to be appealed to and quoted as an unerring guide by the New School. Their argument is that the secular power cannot reject the universal laws of the Church which relate to matters within her cognizance ; that beyond question the decree Tametsi has been pub- lished either in France or in Canada, as may be seen by reference to the Quebec ritual, page 342.* But even if the publication ol this decree were of such a character as to give it the force of law, it would not follow that all the decrees of the Council of Trent are in lorce in Quebec. The Court of Rome decided, in a rescript addressed to Bishop Plessis, that this particular decree is in force in all that part of British North Am-rica which was previously possessed by the Crown of France : in the two Canadas, the North- West Territory, Nova Scotia, and Newfound- land. The neighbourhood of Lake Champlain was excepted, on the ground that previous to the conquest of Canada the possession of this territory was continually disputed between the English and the French, and that apparently the decree had not been published there. t From this it is evident that it was not pretended, even at Rome, that all the decrees of the Council of Trent were in force in Canada. There is one legal decision which seems to recognize the decree Tametsi as being in force in the Province of Quebec. M. Vaillancourt, by means of false representa- tions, induced the cure, not of his own parish, but of the parish of Three Rivers, to perform the marriage ceremony between himself and his deceased wife's sister. Judge Polette declared this marriage null : because it had been ♦ Abbe Maguire, Recueil de Notes Diverses, i Abbe Maguire. THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 317 contracted before another priest than that ot the parish in which the parties lived, and because it was within the prohibited degrees. The decision was made in accordance with the ancient law, the Code not having then been in force. Before pronouncing on the validity of this marriage, the court sent the case before the ecclesiastical authority to have the canonical validity of the marriage decided. The Bishop of Three Rivers pronounced the marriage null for the reasons stated. The bishop's decree was reported in the civil court, March 23rd, 1866, when Judge Polette said : ' Seeing that the said sentence of the said bishop declares the said marriage radically null, this court declares and adjudges that the marriage contracted be- tween the plaintiff and the defendant is null and without civil offect.'t The -eference of the case to the bishop to have the canonical validity of the marriage pronounced upon was not wUhout precedent, though there seems to have been only one other similar reference to which it is possible to poinc. Judge Polette was thought by some to have taken a step that tended towards the revival of the ancient OfficialiU ; but no such result followed. Under the Code of Procedure, it would appear that this reference cannot be repeated, for by the 28th article the Superior Court has cognizance, in the first instance, of all actions which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court or the Court of Admiralty ; though the question is not beyond doubt. It is certain that in most of those parts of British America in which the Court of Rome holds that the de- cree Tametsi is in force, questions of the -alidity oi marriage are decided entirely by the civil laws, and these laws are not everywhere uniform. t Considimtions sur les Lois Civiks du Manage, par Diiiri Girouard, B.C.L .,a:ocat. p. II"* x8 ROME IN CANADA. Even by the admission of the Court of Rome, no other part of the Council of Trent than the decree Tametsi was ever alleged to be in force in Canada ; and the Bishop of Montreal was not authorized to appeal to that Council as a means of proving that to him belonged the right of deciding the morality of the books belonging to the Institute. The bishop refused to accept the submission of the Insti- tute, because that submission was contained in the report of a committee unanimously adopted, in which was a re- solution 'establishing the principle of religious toleration, which,' he is candid enough to admit, ' was the principal cause of the condemnation of the Institute.' This con- fession is as important as it is startling. Let it be well understood that Rome makes the teaching oi the dogma of intolerance in Canada obligatory, and treats as a crime adhesion to the opposite principle. Let us turn to the condemned Annuairc and trace the language which the Congregation of the Index forbids us all, Protestants as well as Catholics, to read. On the 17th of December, 1868, the Hon. L. A. Dessaulles, Pre- sident of the Institute, in a speech afterwards printed in the Annuaire, said : ' We form a society of students, and this society is purely laical. Is an association of lay- men, not under direct religious control, permissible, speak- ing from a Catholic point of view ? Is an association of laymen belonging to various religious denominations per- missible from a Catholic point of viev/ ? What evil is there, in a country of mixed religious opinions, in men of mature mind belonging to different Christian sects giving one another the kiss of peace on the field of science? What ! Is it not permissible, when Protestants and Catho- lics are placed side by side in a country, in a city, for them to pursue together their career of intellectual progress ! There are certain men who are never quiet THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 319 except when they have made enemies both in the domain of conscience and of intelligence. Where do these men get their evangelical notions ? Where then are prudence and simple good sense ? There are those who, themselves a minority in the State, cannot endure persons of oppo- site opinions, and in whose mouth the word ostracism is always to be found. But we have no difficulty in endur- ing you, with all your perversity of nimd and of heart. Imitate therefore a good example, instead of setting a bad one. We therefore form a literary' society of laymen. Our object is p'ogress ; work our means ; tolerance our connecting tie. We have for all the respect which men of sincerity never withhold. There are hypoc-ites who see evil everywhere, and who fear it because they are ac- quainted Avith it. ' What is tolerance ? It is reciprocal indulgence, sym- pathy, Christian charity. It is mutual good will : the sen- timent which men of good will ought to entertain for one another. The noble words : " Peace on earth, good will towards men," is at once a precept of charity and the ex- pression of a desire that they may enjoy peace of mind. Tolerance is the practical application of the greatest of all principles, moral, religious, and social : " Do unto others as you would that they should do u cO you." Tol- erance is therefore fraternity, the spirit of religion well understood. Charity is the first of Christian virtues, tol- erance is the second. Tolerance is a respect for the rights of others; it is indulgence for their error or their fault; it is Chris<- saying to the accusers of the woman taken in adultery : " Let hmi that is without sin among you cast the first stone at her." Tolerance is at bottom humility; the idea that others are not worthless ; that others are as good as ourselves. It is also justice, the idea that others have rights which it is not permissible for us to violate. But intolerance is pride ; it is the idea that we are better f...^ 320 ROME IN CANADA I*' I*' ' than others ; it is egotism, the idea that we owe others nothing ; it is injustice, the idea that we are not bound to respect the rights of God's creatures. Tolerance is always a virtue, because it is the expression of goodness ; intol- erance is almost always cruel and criminal, because it is the destruction of those sentiments of which religion r« - uires the presence in the heart of man.' These are the sentiments the expression of which the Bishop of Mc ntreal, with an abundance of frankness, ad- mits formed the principal cause of the Institut-Canadien being condemned. Their reproduction in the Anniiaire was the cause of that little publication of thirty pages being prohibited by the Congregation of the Index ; and their transfer lo the present work would at Rome be a reason why no one, Protestant or Catholic, should be al- lowed to read, possess, or retain it, if the question were brought before the Holy Office. Before the decision had been given at Rome against the Institute, its members had appealed to the judgment of the Sacred Congregation to decide this question: 'Can a Catholic, without rendering himself liable to ecclesias- tical censures, belong to a literary association, some of the members of which are Protestants, and which pos- sesses books condemned by the Index, but which are neither obscene noi immoral ? ' No answer to this appeal was made ; and the Institute was condemned on a ground entirely dififerent from that raised in the appeal : that it had passed a resolution establishing the principle of religious toleration. But this ground of condemnation, as the Lords of the Privy Council remark, ' was entirely new, does not appear in any former document, and further, it would seem could not have been known by Ouinord.' The Institute was not heard on this point, it "'as Cv idemned in its absence, some one member of the C or t,ref ation presumably going through the usual mockery THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 321 of defending \y\Q Annuaire against the report which would, in the ordinary course of proceeding, be made against it. The Institute appears not even to have known, before it received the decision, that it had been accused of the crime of detesting intolerance. Joseph Guibord, a printer by trade, a Roman Catholic by baptism and education, was a member ot the Institute at the time when it was condemned at Rome, and when the Bishop of Montreal gave warning that any person airerwards continuing to remain a member of that body, or to keep the Annuaire in his possession, would be de- prived of the sacraments, even in the article of death. Some years before his death Guibord, being dangerously ill, received extreme unction from a priest by whom he was attended, but he refused to purchase his right to receive the Communion at the price of relinquishing his connection with the Institute. When Guibord died, the cure, who appears then to have known for the first time the position which the bishop had taken with regard to the members ot tiie In- stitute, refused to give him ecclesiastical burial, and de- cided that the deceased could only be buried in that part of the cemetery set apart for persons who are not within the pale of the Church at the time of their death. 1 widow of the deceased offered to accept burial in the (. i- secrated part of the cemetery without religious servir , ; and the rejection of the offer led to a 'ong series of proceedings, which ended in a judgment of the 1 Council granting precisely what the widow had been wilhng to accept. The decision turned chiefly upon the construction ol the Quebec ritual on the subject of burial. The ritual gives a catalogue of persons to whom ecclesiastical sepulchre is to be denied. Under the head of ' Public Sinners ' five different classes are named, and to this .^al ;vy • rst I aa ROME IN CANADA. r? inHP enumeration the abbreviated words ' etc' are added. But the Privy Council did not feel justified in sanctioning an arbitrary enlargement of the categories in the ritual in such a way as ' would not have been deemed to be within the authority ot the law of the Gallican Church as it existed in Canada before the cession; and,' they added, ' in their opinion, it is not established that there has been such an alteration in the status or law of that Church, founded on the coi. .nt of its members, as would warrant such an interpretation of the ritual, and that the true and just conclusion of law on this point is, that the fact of being a member of this Institute does not bring a man within the category of a public sinner, to whom Christian burial can be legally refused.' The de- cree pointed out the danger which a discretionary enlarge- ment of the categories named in the ritual under the head of public sinners would cause : ' For instance, the et cetera might be, according to the supposed exigency of the particular case, expanded so as to include within its band any person being of habits of intimacy or conversing with a member of a literary society containing a prohibit- ed book; any person visiting a friend who possessed such a book ; any person sending his son to a school in the library of which there was such a book ; going to a shop where such books were sold ; and many other in- stances might be added. Moreover, the Index, which al- ready forbids Grotius, Pascal, Pothier, Thuanus, and Sismondi, might be made to include all the writings of jurists and all legal reports of judgments supposed to be hostile to the Church of Rome ; and the Roman Catholic lawyer might find it difficult to pursue the studies of his profession.' If the time should ever come when our judges will have to recognize the legality of the substitution of the Roman for the Quebec ritual, made by Bishop Bourget im THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 32J , But oning ritual to be hurch ' they : there )f that srs, as 1, and )iut is, )es not ner, to rhe de- mlarge- der the ice, the ■ency ot thin its versing rohibit- ssessed hool in ng to a in the diocese of Montreal, judicial decisions of very startling import may have to be given. Will the Roman ritual, in that diocese, come in time to have the binding force of law upon all who have, by implication, tacitly consented to be placed under it ? During the Guibord trial Judge Mondelet asked the very pertinent question : ' How has the Roman ritual been introduced into this country? By what authority are the decrees ot the Index in force in Canada ?' M. Jette replied, with characteristic nonchalance, that the Roman ritual was the code ot ecclesiastical discipline, and that the Bishop of Montreal had made the change. t The Privy Council, which decided both these points against the bishop, took the Quebec ritual for authority, and made no reference whatever to that of Roir : ^ 'idge Mondelet points out the difference between the iiotnan and the Quebec ritual on the question of burial. The Roman ritual omits the rules which ought to be observed with regard to 'criminals who are condemned to death, and executed in accordance with a judicial condemnation, if they die penitent.' The ritual of Quebec allows eccle- siastical sepulchre to be given to them, ' but without ceremony, the cure or vicar saying the prayers in a low voice and not having on his surplice.' Judge Mondelet, still anxious to penetrate the motive for the substitution of one ritual for the other, asked tes will ot the 5ourget f It is 8'"""rising that neither Judge Mondel-t nor M. Cass'dy knew at what tiir.e nor in what way the chanf;e of ritual had been made. The Judge had had no sp.-pular comment upon this comforting assurance which the priest gave to the condemned assassins was that the * best means to enable a person to die with public honours was to commit assassination.' The assassins were assured of a direct convoy to heaven, but for a man who reads Montesquieu, or Grotius, or Sismondi, all hope of salvation is for ever shut out. The attempt to substitute the Roman for the Quebec jr tial affords another proof of the desire of the New Set ool to leave behind it the old landmarks. Mgr. de Saint Vallier, Bishop of Quebec, in an address to the cures, missionaries, and other priests of the diocese, Oct. 8th, 1700, said : ' In order that no person should have cause to pretend ignorance of our intentions we prohibit the use of every other ritual' than that of Quebec. The change of the ritual, if valid, the attempt to change it if the attempt be without legal effect, shows the growth of a Romeward disposition, and is one indication of the distance travelled in that direction since the days of Mgr. dc St. Vallier. Against the decree of the Privy Council ordering the burial of Guibord in the consecrated part of the cemetery, the Bishop of Montreal, by means of inflammatory pastor- als, raised a fanatical opposition which threatened a breach THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 325 of the peace. Once the remains of Guibord, and the co/-- ti'ge by which they were attended, were driven back by the menaces ot an infuriated mob ; and finally, after days and weeks of delay, the decree of the highest court in the empire was only carried into effect under the protection of a strong guard ot militia. At the last moment, the bishop recoiled from the precipice to which temerity had carried him ; yielding only when he became convinced that the arm of the civil power was prepared to carry into effect the judicial decree wliich had exrited his wratliful oppo- sition. But the resort to ynse anvi subterfuge was still possible ; the bishop set his invt>nt'{\>n to work to find out some plan by which the decree of the Privy Council could be practically nullified. Guibord was to be buried in consecrated ground: it struck the bishop, as a happy thought, to interdict and separate it from the rest of that part of the cemetery set apart to receive the bodies of persons having a right to ecclesiastical burial, and thus make the feal legal decision in the case of no practical eftect. This threat was carried into effect, and so fcr with seeming impunity ; but the trick of evasion caused a heavy loss of moral strength, of which the bishop seemed to be unconscious, but which has its effect on the public mind. What he gained was only in appearance ; what he lost was real, enduring, and irrt-roverable. The act by which the Bishop of Montreal interdicted the grave of Guibord necessarily extended the censure to the body of his innocent wife, over whose coffin that of the husband was superimposed. She had died in the laith, and received ecclesiastical burial. According to the Quebec ritual, Article X., ecclesiastical censure necessarily supposes a sin of considerable gravity. One guilty of venal sin cannot, according to the ritual, be punished with a censure greater than the excommuni- 326 ROME IN CANADA. cation minor. Does the fact of helonf;finf^ to a litcary society which has prohibited books in its hl)rary constiliite a sin of considerable gravity? Judge Mondelet answers this question by saying : 'No sensible man will pretend that to d'sobey the bishop, especially whe , he is in the wrong, is. a sin of considerable gravity: it is not even a venal sin.' The (tpf'cl coninte d'abus coulrl, in France, be invoked against an e.xoninuinication pronounced for improper or inadequate cause. When the Official of Toulouse had excommunicated the Seneschal of Toulouse, on ac- count of his refusal to give up a prisoner to him, the Official was condemned to revoke the excommunication. The same result would follow if the excommunication were Inlminated against the sovereign, the nation, or public officers for acts done in discharge of their dnty. It was in these words that the bishop cut off the grave of Guibord from the rest of the cemetery : ' We declare by these presents, in order that no person may be able to pretend to be ignorant thereof, that that part of the cemetery in which the body of tiie late Joseph Guibord ma'' be buried, if ever it be, shall be in fact and remain ipso focto interdicted and separated from the rest of the cemetery.'* And recalling the fact, after the burial, he said :t " We have truly declared, in virtue of the divine power which we exercise in the name of the pastors, that the place in which the body of this rebel child of the Church has been deposited is in fact separated from the rest of the consecrated cemetery, to become henceforth nothing but a profane place.' Bishop Bourget had a free and easy way of doing things. According to the Didionnaire de Trfvoux, which Abbe McGuire says ought to be in the library of every *Lettre I'tisiora!e,S Sept., 1875. + Ltttre Pastorale, 16 Nov., 1875. If >l,^ r doing which every THE INDEX AND THE INQUISFTION. 317 euro in the Province of Quebec, an 'interdict chit itn pro- noncr avec les mimes formalitcz que Vexcommunicntion ' (the interdict ouglit to be pronounced with tiie same tormaUties as the excommunication). Excommunication, th( same author says, ought to be preceded by public notice, three times repeated, at intervals of two d lys each; and this, whether it be the major excommunication, which inflicts the penalty of separation from the communion of the faithful, or the minor excommunication, which merely implies a denial of the sacraments. In the alleged excommunication of Guibord, no public notice was given. The old formalities of pi,mouncing the excommunication, with maledictions and anathemas, amidst the ringing of bells and the trampling out of lighted candles, is one that might, one would thiidi, be very well dispensed with. Sometimes excommunication was extended to the lower forms of animal life ;% ^^'"t ^^ insect or a rat could not be excommunicated without the formality of assigning it an advocate for its defence being gone through. Guibord was allowed no such privilege. When a kingdom was placed under interdict for the assumed fault of the sovereign, the innocent suffered with the guilty. But who was the guilty party in this case ? Who ordered the burial of Guibord to take place in the consecrated part of the cemetery of Cote des Neiges ? The Privy Council. It is against their act that the eccle- siastical censure is directed. This act of the bishop bears an unpleasant analogy to those ecclesiastical censures on the decisions of lay judges against which the Gallican liberties guarded the rights of the French people when Canada was a colony of France. 1 11 a y eu des (H-jques qui ont prononce des excommunication contre des chenilles et autres insectes, apres une procedure juridique, et apros avoir donne k ces ani'aaux un avocat et un procureur pour se defendre. Fevet raporte divers exemples deg pareilles excommunications, ou contre des rats qui infectoient les pays, ou centres les autres animaux. — Trivoux, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 128 ■ 50 Km u, Ui 12.2 ^ 1^ 12.0 I' i 1.8 1.25 III 1.4 1.6 .« 6" ► m ^ //, % ^2 % '^ ■> /A ''W V Hiotographic Sciences Corporation %^ ;v \\^ ^^^^' 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 % <\^' <\ 328 ROME IN CANADA. i The inflammatory pastorals found a ready echo in the Ultramontane journals, when the question was gravely asked whether Guibord should be allowed to be buried, or whether — such was the implied alternative — violence should be used to prevent it ; and a torrent of contempt was poured on the decree of the Privy Council, in wretched rhymes, the work of ignorant fanaticism, or of dis- guised cunning bringing itself down to the intellectual level of the mob by whom the burial had once been for- cibly prevented. The spot in which Guibord was buried had been consecrated only as the result of a fortuitous cir- cumstance. Even the part ol the cemetery in which the faithful are buried is not consecrated in bulk : at each burial a benediction is pronounced upon the grave.* If the fiat of a bishop can cut off a grave from that part of the cemetery in which the highest court in the realm directs a burial to take place, and if it can do so before the law is complied with, it is plain that he can in effect exercise the power of annulling judicial decisions. The pretended act of separation, accompanied with the interdict, in this case preceded the burial. Is then a Roman Catholic bishop enabled at will to prevent the execution of the judgments of the civil tribunals ? For it is certain that he aims at, and claims to have accomplished, nothing less. The exercise of such a power in France would have been followed by the appel coinme d'abiis. When the mob had been excited to oppose the burial by violence, and it had become evident that this first success against the cause of order would not be allowed * Temoignage de Messire Victor Rousselot in the Guibord trial. There is no doubt about the correctness of this statement ; and yet Bishop Bourget, while pretending to use his influence to appease the fury of the mob, after its violence had prevented the burial of the remains of Guibord, in pursuance of the decree of the Privy Councih informed the mob (Ldtre Pastorale, Sept. 8, 1875; that it had merely shown its reli- gious sentiment ' for the holy place which the Church has consecrated.' It is notorious hat there had been no general consecration at the time of the Guibord trial. mm^' rF"!f!"'il THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 329 to be repeated, the Bishop of Montreal recoiled. While excusing the peace breakers, he assumed the rdle of peace- maker. The mob, it was gravely hinted, had even been obliged to make a public demonstration to prevent the profanation of a sacred place. To describe as a peaceful demonstration the outrage of a mob which prevented a burial ordered by the Privy Council from taking place attests a lamentable confusion of ideas. This spontaneous demonstration, which, according to the bishop, the hearts of the mob had inspired, he now, like a good citizen, advised them not to repeat. Who, it is time to ask, was responsible for all the violent and tyrannical proceedings against the Institut-Canadien which finally excited the violence of this mob ? Let Judge Mondelet answer. In no less serious a document than his judgment in the Guibord case, this functionary says: 'The responsibility of all this affair, the bad pas- sions which are the fruit of ignorance and fanaticism, raised and tanned into activity as well by the pretensions of the bishop as by the inconsiderate sallies of the coterie who appear to have made themselves the organ and the reflection of his will ; this responsibility, let it once more be said, belongs neither to the worthy clergy of the Seminary, nor to our estimable fellow-citizens, the Marguiliiers ; it belongs principally to the exaggerated pretensions of the Bishop of Montreal and his immediate entourage.' The origin of all these difficulties was the attempt of the bishop to curb and destroy that growth of independent opinion in literary and political matters to which the Institute had given an impulse. A Protestant journal published in French, the Semeur Canadien, indicated the appearance of an influence which must at once be crushed. The Institute, having Protestants as well as Catholics among its members, committed the sin of placing on its ROME IN CANADA. files the Semeur Canadien. If the Institute would exclude all journals which treated of religious topics, it was given to understand, it might be allowed to continue to exist undisturbed. But the resolution proposing this exclusion was voted down. Then the time had come for making the attack general, and the bishop, as we have seen, claimed the right to judge ot the morality of the books. In vain was he told that the Institute did not consist ex- clusively of Roman Catholics, and that it did not depend altogether on them to say what books should be used. The members were not afraid that he should examine the catalogue, and note his objections to any books found therein.* This the bishop undertook to do. For this purpose he received the catalogue, which he finally re- turned without having pointed out the objectionable books. t In this contest, the Institute was not without the sup- port of many of the more reasonable and moderate of the clergy, by whom its members were advised in the very matter in which the bishop brought an accusation of hy- pocrisy. The identical words in which the Institute de- clared its submission to the decree from Rome v/ere writ- ten and sanctioned by those members of the c'ergy. Vicar-General Truteau, who administered the diocese of Montreal in the absence of the bishop, which was sometimes continued for many months at a time, when interrogated on the point, swore that he had never seen a list of the books in the Index, and that he did not know whether it was to be found at the bishop's palace. He could not, therefore, have known when he was reading a pro- hibited book, and whether he was or was not rendering himself liable to ecclesiastical censures which entailed, as he himself contended, refusal of the right of ecclesias- ♦ Deposition de Joseph Emery Goderre. -f Tdmoignage de L'Hon, L, A. DessaulleB. THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 331 tical burial. Can it be that the want of a list of the In- dex was the cause of the bishop not fulfilling his promise to point out what were the objectionable books contained in the catalogue of the Institute ? But if the Vicar-General was innocent of all knowledge of the Index, he could lay down with great precision those ecclesiastical laws which relate to the possession of prohibited books. As an administrator of the diocese, it is easy to conceive that it might have been inconvenient to him, in some possible emergency, to point out a single condemned book, or to say whether the perusal of any particular book was allowable or not. In these lucid terms, the administrator laid down the law : ' M. Joseph Guibord, from the fact of his being a member of the In- stitut Canadien, belonged to a body which was and still is under the censure of the Church, for the reason that it possesses a library containing books prohibited by the Church under pain ot excommunication latce sententice incurred ipso facto, and reserved to the Pope by the fact of the possession of the said books. This species of ex- communication is incurred by the simple fact from the time that the persons in question understand the law of the Church which prohibits thenceforth the reading and possession thereof.' If Vicar-General Truteau had only been possessed of a list of the Index, and had taken the trouble to read it, what a multitude of evils might not have been prevented. When the Guibord case was before the Superior Court of Lower Canada, the presiding judge, Mondelet, stopped one of the counsel, M. Cassidy, who was giving utter- ance to very extravagant Ultramontane pretensions, and said : ' I wish to ask you a question, M. Cassidy. Is a person excommunicated from the moment he reads a book in the Index ?' M. Cassidy — ' He is, or at least his sin will be according to the nature of the book.' The % If ill I' '' "*. i''. |j Ik- . * ?■■' : , ■; 33« ROME IN CANADA. jfuclge — * Do you pretend to say that if, to-day, I should have occasioUj in studying a cause, to open Montesquieu, lor example, that I should by the mere fact of doing so be excommunicated ?' M. Cassidy — ' It is easy to reply, your Honour; the laws of the Index exist or do not exist ; if they exist, they bind all Catholics. When one is in doubt it is easy to apply to his spiritual adviser. The bishop could grant a dispensation.' The jfudge — ' Then there are a great many people out of the good road.' Unless M. Cassidy be a better authority than the Bishop of Montreal, he is mistaken in supposing that if Judge Mondelet, or any other judge, found it necessary in studying a cause to open Montesquieu, the bishop could authorize him to do so by dispensing with the pro- hibition. The Pope alone could grant the dispensation. We fear that M. Cassidy is but an indifferent canonist, for he seems to imply, though he does not say so in ex- press terms, that the prohibition to read condemned books is confined to Roman Catholics. Vicar- General Truteau, though by some mischance he has never seen a printed list of the Index, is a better authority on the point to which Rome carries her pretensions. Being asked, when under examination, whether the Church in Canada claimed jurisdiction over public bodies composed of persons professing different religions, he replied : * The jurisdiction which the Church of Canada exercises is a part of the universal jurisdiction of the Church. The Church regards as those over whom she can exer- cise jurisdiction all persons who have been baptized. There are, therefore, only non-baptized persons belong- ing to the Institut-Canadien who are not subject to the authority of the Church; all others are subject to that authority, whether they be Catholics or Protestants. And on this principle I consider that the entire body of the Institute was bound to conform to the exigencies of THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 335 the Church.' To the objection that this doctrine made all Protestants members of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vicar-General replied that the Church had cast them from her bosom, and did not regard them as members ; but claimed that, in virtue of the baptism they had re- ceived, they were subject to her jurisdiction, trom which they could not release themselves, though she had the right to deprive them of all advantage of connection with her. This doctrine, so comforting to Rome, offers a melan- choly prospect for the stray sheep. The question which the extreme assumptions of Rome raises is not a question of Roman Catholic and Protest- ant ; it is whether that Church can deprive the people, without distinction, of their civil rights, without their consent and against their will. But, in truth, was the Institut-Cnnadien really con- demned by the Inquisition ? Judge Mondelet does not admit that it was ; the Bishop of Montreal having, the judge contends, drawn from the decrees of Rome infer- ences which were not justified. Some laymen have taken the same view ; but it does not appear to be concurred in by the Privy Council. The Annuaire, it may be ad- mitted, is an official docuntent, in the nature of a yearly report of the Institute. It contains, besides the balance sheet for the year, and the constitution and rules of the Institute, a speech of the president, a lecture of Horace Greel}', and a speech by M. Geoffrion, all delivered on the twenty-fourth anniversary of the foundation of thj society. The Institute was clearly responsible for the publication of its own report, paid for out of its funds; and so far it seems to be fairly open to the charge — what a subject of complaint ! — of having comi^atted the prin- ciple of intolerance, and of having defended that of toleration. It is true that M. DessauUes afterwards 334 ROME IN CANADA. stated on oath that his object was not, in the part of the Annuaire for which he was responsible, to write in favour of dogmatic toleration, but that he only contended lor personal tolerance, in a society composed of persons of different religious creeds. The Institute, situated in the midst of a Roman Catholic population, and depending for its support, to a large extent, on the good-will of that denomina- tion, had a strong motive for attempting to efface the impression that it had come under the censure of the Congregation of the Inquisition. And though it is true that the Annuaire is not the Institute, it cannot well be denied that the doctrines contained m that report were accepted and published by the Institute ; and if bigots say so much the worse for the Institute, liberal-minded men do not the less say so much the better for the Institute. But why go to Rome when books obnoxious to the New School require to be condemned ? Villeneuve* has let us into the secret that the ten priests who formed the entourage of the late Bishop of Montreal were charged, among other things, with the examination of new books in view of their possible condemnation. If the Vicar- General, who was at the head of this council of ten, has never, as he confesses, seen a list of the Index, what may be the qualifications of the inferior clergy who form his assistants for this office ? Certain it is that Bishop Bour- get, by the aid of the council of ten, did assume to exer- cise the functions of the Congregation of the Index. We have already passed in review La Comedie Infernale of Villeneuve. When the reply of M. Dessaulles to this libel appeared, Bishop Bourget, as we have seen, issued a circular to his clergy forbidding any one 'to keep, for any purpose whatever, except to refute,' this pamphlet, ' un- less the consent of the bishop has been obtained.' * La Com. Inf. i\ ' THE INDEX AND THE INQUISI770N. 335 What is the nature of this pamphlet, the reading of which IS so peremptorily forbidden ? It is a philippic more or less — more rather ihan less — nmcr against the local Ultramontanes of Quebec. It was written at a time (1873) when the press which had previously opposed the aggres- sion of the New School had been cowed into silence, and when an attempt was being made to gain a like conquest over the Archbishop of Quebec, the University of Laval, and the Seminary of Montreal. It would have been sur- prising if the author had not caught something of the tone ot the controversy in which he engaged. A writer at whose head every odious epithet which the French language supplies had been thrown, did not feel called upon to measure and curb the force of the bhjws which he struck back. When an attempt is made to stifle all discussion, even the calmest and most moderate men who assert their right to the freedom of opinion are not likely to do so in a whisper. The cause of the Secu- larists in Quebec may have been injured by the acrimony ot its advocates ; but it is better that men should assert their right freely to express their honest convictions with something of the bitterness which the attempt to rob them of their rights has a natural tendency to engender than not at all. It was not so much what M. Dessaulles said, as what he professed to have in reserve, that made the clerical party anxious to crush him. By what he said he irritated his opponents beyond measure ; by what he threatened to say in future, he alarmed their fears. ' It is,' he said, ' long since I came to understand, from the rapid development of a tendency towards domination in the clergy, that we are advancing towards a grave con- test, in which perhaps many will succumb before they gain strength to go against the tide ; but here, as elsewhere, it will necessarily end by the victory of laicism, that is to say, the national sovereignty, over clericism, which is the v^' a; 336 ROME IN CANADA. final risnme of the despotism of one man. And foreseeing this contest, I prepared to enter on it not simply with declamation, but with tangible facts sustained by unde- niable proof. I therefore made a special study of the social action of the clergy in this country ; I followed them not only in the public arena, where they appear irreproachable to those who judge with their religious sympathies, but also outside the scene where they are so much flattered, and there,* Mgr., I saw many black spots, many a rent in the sacerdotal costume caused by walking in a thorny and dangerous path If it should ever be necessary for me to render an account of certain ecclesiastical inquests that have come to my knowledge, I shall reveal some strange things.' M. Dessaulles announces his determination to put an end to the practice of denouncing calumnies against indi. viduals in the Church ; a practice against which only the laws of the land require to be invoked to crush it out effectually. He went further : he demanded that the priests should cease to make the pulpit the arena of poli- tical propagandism. Numerous instances of such clerical interference ni politics are given ; in some of which the priests went so far as to declare that to vote for the candi- date of a particular party would be a mortal sin. ' That the intervention of the clergy in political con- tests, especially within the walls of the Church,' we read in the prohibited pamphlet, ' is a grave abuse, there exist so many mandates of eminent bishops, in various parts of the Catholic world, which so define it, that it is not ne- cessary to resort to the use of logic to prove the fact. And those who think so, are truly the wise and thoughtful men of the episcopate, while we too often find those who are neither wise nor thoughtful speaking otherwise. Com- mon sense says that the pastor estranges from him those * The pamphlet is in the form of letters, addressed to the Bishop of Montreal. THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION 337 with whom he places himself in antagonism, and whom he violently blames, in public, for not consulting him as to how they should exercise their ights as citizens, or lor acting contrary to his wishes. When the blame is not violent in form, it is still reprehensible, from the point of view of canon law ; for from the moment that any one is publicly designated in a church, the attention of his neighbours is fixed upon him in an unfavourable manner. This point is too elementary in canon law for your lord- ship not to admit it. And it is evident that the undue influence of the clergy exercised over temporal affairs, in the name of religion, vitiates the whole constitutional system, practically nullifies free institutions, in some sort puts the whole political system in the hands of the clergy ; and there are a hundred examples of what the clergy will do with people whom they control. They are not satisfied with their work till they have caused the people to stagnate in ignorance and superstition.' The writer points out the weak point in the system which our Ultramontanes are building up : ' The Ultramontane founds his power on the abasement of character ; he agrees only with the intelligences which he has fashioned in his own mould ; and when the people have been reduced to nullity and to slavery, he triumphs in the completion of his work. There is only one weak point in this beautiful system : when the Ultra- montane has need of energetic characters to defend him, in times of peril, they are not to be found, because he has reduced them to nullity by prohi" iting them from thinking outside of the narrow sphere in which he has immured them. This is why he is always sure to be beaten in a time of crisis : because he has always enfee- bled, in advance, the moral force of his defenders. And t is fortunate that his system of universal abasement thus carries within itself its own antidote.' S38 ROME /iV CANADA. One of the reasons for condemninj^ this pamphlet was that the author had shown himself hostile to Ultramon- tanism. The charf^e is true, and to our mind it consti- tutes the chief merit of the work. ' The infallibility of a man in all questions of morals, that is to say, in matters social, political, lefjislative, iej^al, or scientific, over all subjects of the temporal order, is the most terrible aberra- tion in hisiory. *' It is," as an illustrious priest who ilied in the bosom of the Church said, " the most stupendous insolence that has yet bern oflered in the name of Jesus Christ." This principle of infallibility, in temporal mat- ters, can only mean the exercise of arbitrary power in its worst form ; the absolute and unlimited power of one man who has no sort of responsibility in this world.' If the powers attributed to the Popes were admitted, ' govern- ments would become thcslavesof sacerdotalism; the people only a troupe of animals, to be told off to ungrateful labour without any right to enquire into the condition that is prepared for them or to watch over their adminis- trators ; human reason loses all her rights, because she can only receive her direction from the Pope in every order of things ; and there is but one sole sovereign master of society and of states, who, according to the abominable pretension of the commentators of the canon law, " can make just what is unjust, and unjust what is just."' Another reason for condemning this pamphlet was be- cause the author, so the Bishop of Montreal said, ' out- raged with revolting insolence the Sacred Roman Congre- gations, those supremely august tribunalswhich command the respect of the entire world.' It is true that M. Des- sauUes' estimate of these Sacred Congregations was not high. He said : ' There does not exist a man worthy to enter a government who would consent to act under the direction of the Roman Congregations, some of which THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 339 have been so decried by their arrots or their opinions of decisions, at different epochs. It would not be necessary to have studied much, Mg**., to be able to cite a hun- dred decisions of thfj Roman Congregations which would make even the clergy ol to-day laugh ;'.... when intelligent travellers have discussed the ♦ public law of the members so vaunted here of the Roman Congrega- tions, they have been stupified with their inability to compass the simplest questions of public law.' M. Dcs- saulles accounts for thii, by saying that they have read nothing which has been published during the last fifty years, and that they still seek in St. Thomas the solution of social, economic, and industrial questions. Whence did Bishop Bourget obtain the righj ot prohi- biting not only Catholics, but also all other persons who have been baptized, from reading this or that book? Did the Pope authorize him and the ten priestc who acted conjointly with him in such matters to form themselves into a local Congregation of the Index ? Or did he invest them with the powers of the Holy Office of the Inquisi- tion? We know that the bishop sighed for a Canadian Sorbonne. Did he, in conjunction with the ten priests, undertake to discharge the functions ot a Canadian Sor- bonne? But does not the idea of a Canadian Sorbonne, which the bishop certainly did at one time encourage, belong, in some sort, to those Gallican errors against which he and his troupe ol writers can an, besoiii declaim so loudly ? Did not St. Louis, ol Pragmatic Sanction lame, favour the loundation of this famous faculty ol theology ? The Faculty of Theology ol Paris was accustomed to deal out its censures without stint, but it did not confine itsell to mere denunciation, and though it made use ot hard words, it did not feel at liberty to dispense with criticism and bid adieu to reason. Its method of pro- 22 1^ 340 ROME IN CANADA. U I cecding was at least intelligib'e. When it censured a book, it let the world know why. It extracted tlie pas- sage to which objection was taken, and then gave, by way of commentary, the grounds on which its censures were based. T have one oftliese performances before me wiiich extends to one hundred and seventy pages." It is a criticism marred by the anger of theological disputa- tion ; but to the method on which it is based no objec- tion can be taken. On tlie contrary, it presents some decided advantages. The autiior knows precisely why his work is censured, and \l is open to him to reply on an}' and e\ery point. In this way, the ])ublic could judge between the disputants. But the Sorbonne, while condemning the book, d(>f;s ii.-t undertake to prohibit its use or possession. In adflition to receiving the censure of the Sorbonne, the book had lieen ordered by the parlia- ment nf Paris to be burned by tlie hand of the hangman. After these two sentences had been passed, the Arch- bishop of Vienne issued a mandate forbidding it to be read within his diocese. The Bishop of Montreal, with- out even obtaining the consent of the primate, assumed to exercise the power of saying authoritatively what books might and what books might not be read. What is important to be known in this connection, is whether the rights of citizens, even of such as have not given him any right to control their acts in any way whatever, can be arbitrarily taken away by a stroke of a Roman Catholic bishop's pen ? But while the Bishop of Montreal confined himself merely to denouncing M. Dessaulle's pamphlet and for- bidding it to be read, one of the pamphleteers in the ser- vice of that functionary set to work to decry it imder * Censure de la Faculty de Thoologie de Paris, Centre une Llvre qui a pour litre ; Histoire I'hilosophique et Politique des Ktablissemens des Europoens dans les Deux Indes par G.T. Raynal. THE INDEX AA'D THE IXQCIS/T/ON. 34« colour of answering its arguments and refuting its opin- ions. Than this division of labour nothing could pos- sibly be more convenient. The pamphleteer, though he be the Abbo Pelletier, who was in close connection with the bishop, can make statements which a grave mon- seigneur might not think it prudent to venture, and when, as happened in this case, he writes anonymously, no. body is responsible ; he may act as the mere amanuensis of a high ecclesiastical dignitary, and in that case also nobody is responsible. In the rdlc he undertook it was the duty of the abbe to decry liberty of conscience. It all men are not indiscriminately allowed to use fire-arms^ to sell intoxicating liquors, to keep and distribute explo- sive materials, and to circulate poisons, the abbo con- cludes that it is equally proper to prohibit the expres- sion of all opinions which have not been approved at Rome. False and erroneous opinions he classes as moral poisons, destructive of morality and religion, while * the books and journals to which they have been consign- ed are infinitely more pernicious than physical poisons.' Whence it follows that the Church not only may, but ought to, proscribe their use, under severe penalties, if ne- cessary. If men were as generally agreed as to what opinions are dangerous and what are safe as they are on the deadly qualities of physical poison, this analogy would go for something ; but in the divided state of opinion on questions of dogma, it goes for nothing. To the c DJection that there are excellent books in the Index, the \bbt! Pelletier thinks it sufficient to reply that there are j-ienty of worthless people who contend that the penitentiaries and bagnes are peopled with very honest personages. What are we to think of reasoning which admits no moral difference between the speculative opin- ions of Montesquieu, Grotms, or Buarlamaqui, and the acts of the burglar and the highwayman ? ' To pretend," 342 ROME IN CANADA. says the abbe, ' that one has the right to read bad books' — ev^fything is bad which the Congregation of the Index or the Inquisition has condemned — ' because he belongs to a literary society which has placed itself out of the religious sphere, is the extreme f folly. As well might it be said that one has the right to kill, because he be- longs to a band of brigands. To join such a society or association is the first crime; to act conformably to its spirit is the second.' A member of a literary society in- corporated by Act of Parliament possesses rights in con- nection with that society, and of which, let us be thank- ful, the Congregation of the Index or the Inquisition has not yet, in this country, the power to deprive him. But let us not be too certain. When Guibord was burried, bishops had not the power to deprive members of a literary society, in whose library are books con- demned by the Index, of the right of civil burial in that part of the cemetery which is consecrated, either as a whole or when each burial takes place. An Act since passed by the Provincial Legislature, which contains only a dozen lines, invests the bishop with this power of ex- clusion. Practically, therefore, he can give effect to the decrees of the Congregation of the Index and of the In- quistion, unless he be debarred from doing so by the operation of English statutes which are in force in this country, and which it may not be in the power of the Local Legislature to repeal. It is impossible that any large public library can exist without having on its shelves many prohibited books. On the same principle that the Institut-Canadien was con- demned every legislative library in America offends, and all are liable to the same condemnation : the only thing that is wanting is some bishop with a sufficient stock of indiscreet zeal to denounce them to the Holy Office. No future Guibord case can ever come before the civil THE INDEX AND THE INQUISITION. 343- tribunals of Quebec, the bishops having obtained absolute power over burials from the Provincial Legislature. These functionaries can give full effect to all the consequences of the major excommunication pronounced in punishment of the sin of reading, possessing, or belonging to a literary association which possesses, books under the ban of the- Index. Legally, the decrees the Inquisition and oi the Congregation of the Index are not in force in Canada ; practically they are in force in the Province of Quebec. In New Spain, the tribunals of the Inquisition, which held their sessions at Mexico, Lima and Carthagena,. spent most of their energies in examining and anathematiz- ing books. No books, wherever produced or in whatever language, were permitted to go into circulation till they had been examined by the commissioners of the Holy Office. The crime of selling a forbidden book incurred for the first offence prohibition to the seller to deal in books for two years, banishment from the place where the business had been carried on, and a fine of one hundred ducats. A repetition of the offence brought a heavier punishment. As the fines went into the coffers of the Inquisition, there was a strong temptation to find in the books examined heresy, immodesty, or disrespect of the government. No one was at liberty to use a catalogue of books which he received from abroad till he had sent it .:o the Holy Office, which was not bound to restore it. Private individuals were liable to domiciliary visits from the commissioners of the Inquisition, in search of prohib- ited books, at any hour of the day or night. Permissions to read condemned books were most generally given to priests and monks, but this liberty did not extend to all books. The Spanish Index ex pxirgatorius might vie in comprehensiveness with the Roman : in 1790 it con- tained no less than five thousand four hundred and twenty 344 ROME IN CANADA. authors.* Is it any wonder that a people whose intellect was thus stunted and repressed has, even to our time, shown a deplorable incapacity for self-government ? The narrow spirit of intolerance which has practically caused the ruin of the Canadian Institute, and restricted the reading of nearly a million of people in Quebec to books which the Roman Index has not prohibited, is a survival of what in many parts of the vast country which formed New Spain no longer finds legal manifestation. In some of the Republics of South America, Ultramontanism has, from time to time met resolute checks ; in Quebec, it has steadily been gaining ground for more than a century. What may be the relative position, in this respect, of the offspring of New France and New Spain in the future, is a question which is closely connected with one ol the pro- .blemsof Canada's destiny. * Depons, Voyage dans TAmerique XVII. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. The twenty-sixth article of the Syllahus, when transturni- ■ed from its negative to a positive form, asserts the innate and legitimate right of acquisition and possession in the Church. Civil governments liave, however, Intherto, and will in future, find it necessary, for their own protection and the good ot societwto place these alleged rights under many restrictions. If, in spite of the statutes of mort- main, the English monasteries once got within their grasp a filth part ol the lands of the kingdom,* what might not have been done in Canada, before a like restraint was ])ut upon the acquisitions of the French clergy? An arret of the Council of State, Nov. 26, 1743, gives us the an- swer. In the Declaration of Louis XIV., prefixed to the arret, the king, after statuig what he has done for the Re- ligious Orders, proceeds to tell what they had done for themselves. In virtue of their privileges, they had ac- quired such considerable properties that it became ne- cessary to put a limit to their acquisitions. And, in the year 1703, instructions were given that each of the Re- ligious Orders in the French West indies should not be at liberty to possess more land than would employ a hundred negroes. But this restriction, the king distinct- ly states, was disregarded, and a new prohibition was is- sued in the form of letters patent, August, 172 1, that no acquisition, either of houses or lands, should be made by these Orders without the king's express permission iia ♦ Hallam. k: I : r . ■ 346 ROME IN CANADA. writing, under penalty of escheat to the domain of the Crown. And now a state of things existed in Canada which made it necessary to extend the regulation to that colony. Whatever favour might be merited by establishmen'. founded on motives of religion and charity, the king de- clared the time had come when efficacious precautions must be taken, not only to prevent the formation of new establishments without the royal permission, but also to prevent those which already existed from making new ac- quisitions. The Religious Orders were drawing money from commerce, lands, and agriculture, and a state of things contrary to the common good ol society was being lYitroduced. The prohibition extended to religious communities, hospitals, congregations, brotherhoods, colleges, and other communities, ecclesiastic or lay. All testamentary dispositions in favour of these bodies were to be null. No new foundation was to be permitted, unless on the advice of the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and Intendant. The letters patent were to mention the extent and char- acter of the endowment, and no other was to be acquired without further authority. The Procureurs-General were to examine the letters patent, and if they found reason for objecting to them, the letters were not to take effect. The prohibition extended to all immovable goods, and all revenues derived from the property of individuals, an exception being made in iavour of certain revenues {rentes constitties) derived from the Crown or the clergy of France. The whole arret is of the most sweeping character, and it placed the right of future acquisition entirely at the op- tion of the civil government. The provisions of this declaration were renewed by the edict of mortmain of 1749, which was not registered in Canada, and for that reason it became a question whether THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 347- It was in force there. The decisions of the courts on the point have been conflicting.* However this may be, the rehgious communities have never possessed, since 1743, the unlimited right to acquire immovable property with- out the express authority of the civil government. Still, immense additions have been made to the wealth of the Church of Rome in the Province of Quebec, Of all the lands granted, exclusive of islands, by the French Government previous to the conquest the Church had managed to clutch about one-lourth. The total of these grants was a little less than eight millions — 7,985,- 470 — of acres, and of those held in mortmain the quantity was over two millions — 2,115,178 — of acres. The Ursu- lines had obtained 195,525 acres ; the Recollets 945 acres ; the Bishop and Seminary of Quebec 693,324 acres ; the Jesuits, who received a larger quantity than any other order or corporation, 891,845 acres; the Sul- picians, 250,191 acres; the General Hospital of Quebec, 28,497 acres ; the General Hospital of Montreal, 404 acres; Hotel Dieu, Quebec, 14,112 acres; the Sceurs Crises, 42,336 acres. t A large proportion of these lands was situated at points to which population would first tend, and round which it was finally to centre. The Jesuits, besides receiving a booty altogether dispropor- tionate to the other orders, managed to get gifts in posi- tions where lands were best worth having. The Sulpi- cians, and the General Hospital of Quebec, were also both fortunate in this respect. It may reasonably be assumed that the whole, or nearly the whole, of the grants in mortmain had been made at the time when Lcuis XIV. intervened to put a stop to the acquisition of real estate by the Religious Orders. As the arret could not have been required for the mere * Abbe Maguire. Recueil de notes diverges. t Smith's History of Canada. J4« ROME IN CANADA. purpose of tying the king's liands and limiting his l)ounty large acquisitions must have been made tnim private persons. That proluse grants were made |>y sncli jier- sons is notorious. The grants were not always made (hrfiilv |)y thv Crown to the Religious Orders, but soinctimts canic through a third party, who may not have designed, when he obtained the grant, so to dispose ol it. When the grant was not made directly by the Crown, [\i<- king gene- rally coi)firnied the title, and his consent th;ii the land should go into mortmain was always necf.ss;iry ;is it had been in France. The Jesuits, before the suppression ot ihcir Order in 1773, had been banished from Spain and other tountries,. Before these events happened, the Jesuits IkhI ronspired against the safety of every throne in Kiirope. Their doctors had openly proclaimed that no iaith sliould be kept with heretics; that an excommunicated king is de 1 'ived of the right to his throne ; that a.i rrclcsiastic is independent of the government of the conniry in which he lives, and owes obedience only to tlu- chief of his Order: doctrines, many of which they are n-viving in Canada to-day with as much fervour and boldness as in times when the Order was considered most dangerous. For, like some other Religious Orders, whicli were abol- ished only to reappear, the Jesuits were restored by Pius VII. in 1814. The spirit of peace and reconciliation which Clement XIV. evoked in the preambl*- o) his brief of abolition the}' again contemn with the violence of former days. By the Treaty of Paris, 1763, all the pro[)erty of the Jesuits in Canada devolved by right of conqut;st to the Crown; but the surviving members ol the Order were, from reasons of policy, allowed to occuj)y and to enjoy the rents and profits of portions of the estates durii:g THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 349 their natural lives. In the year 1801, Joseph Cazot, the last of the Order, died, and the Sheriff of Quebec seized, on behalf of the Crown, all the property which had be- longed to the extinct Order. Attempts, backed by the English population, were made soon after the conquest to get those estates applied to the purposes of educa- tion, but without avail. It was natui 1, perhaps, when the revenue of the Crown domain in Canada was dispos- ed of at the will of the central authority in Downing- street, that the colonists should make this demand ; and it was equally natural, all things considered, that the demand should be refused. The Jesuits' estates were managed by tht British Government till ii?3i, when they were handed over to local control. To obtain a restoration of these estates was long — has perhaps always been — a design, seldom o])euiy avowed, of certain leading Roman Catholics, by whom their ap- propriation to the uses of the Crown was deuoiuiced as spoliation ; and it was pretended that to place them under the control of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Que- bec, to be applied to the instruction of Indians and the subsistence of missionaries, would be to conform to the intention of the donors. But the bishop was not the Jesuits, and the Jesuit Order had become extinct by an act of the Pope. Its subsequent revival was no reason for restoring the property. Fortunately for Canada, this enterprise has not succeeded. But it is certain that it has not been abandoned. By the order of their institution, the property of the Jesuits at no time belonged to the individual members who happened to be missionaries in the particular coun- try in which the property was situated. By bulls of Gregory XIII., the whole property of the houses of mis- sions was vested in the Father General. The means taken by the Jesuits to increase their land- 330 ROME IN CANADA. ed possessions was sometimes such as will not bear scru- tiny. Once, at least, they were compelled to restore to the French Crown lands of which they had illegally pos- sessed themselves, with all the seignorial dues they had received therefrom.* These lands were situated in the town and baulieu of Quebec. The Jesuits had conceded them to a number oi persons, from whom they had receiv- ed seignorial dues to the amount of ;^3, 026 i8s. 6d. They pleaded twenty-five years' possession, but the validity of this plea was denied on the part of the Crown. The same ordonnance condemned the community of the Hotel Dieu to restore property of which it had become illegally possessed, and from which it had derived seignorial dues to the amount of over 3,300 livres, which, like the Jesu- its, they had to restore along with the lands. The first two Jesuits, Biard and Masse, who visited New France, attempted to obtain possession of a large extent of domain in the neighbourhood of Port Royal (Annapolis). Poutrincourt, who had ruined himself in colonization adventures to New France, had lect'ved as- sistance from the wile of the Marquise de Gourci eville. Father Biard, who with his fellow priest had b.'ought her into the partnership, counselled her to obtain from the Sieur de Monts all his rights and title to lands which Henry IV. had granted to him. The object ot this advice was, according to Lescarbot,t that the Jesuits should themselves get possession of the property. He adds that they had taken care not to tell the Marchioness the extent of the lands covered by the titles of de Monts, which embraced ' Port Royal and the lands adjacent and so far distant as the land may extend:' that is, to the other side of the peninsula. These two Jesuit priests resolved to go into a trading adventure before they set out for * Ordonnance 15 e. Mai, 1758. + Histoire de la Nouvelle France. Ed. 1618. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 351 Canada, and they bought half a cargo which Biencourt and Robin had put on board a vessel at Dieppe. Les- carbot prints the contract, drawn up by a notary, between the Jesuit priests and their partners. There are other instances of Jesuits engagnig in trade in Canada, and it became necessary to prevent them doing so by a positive legal prohibition. The way in which the Island of Montreal was obtained from the original proprietor affords a remarkable illus- tration of the influences the religious corporations some- times exerted in the acquantion of property. The island had been granted to Jean de Lauson, Intendant of Dau- phine, on condition that he should plant a colony upon it. He had, however, neglected this part of the contract. M. de la Dauversiere had received a command from heaven, so he said, to establish an hospital on the Island of Montreal, and to carry out this command, the design of obtaining a cession of the Island from M. de Lauson was formed. The acquisition was at first to be made in the name of the associates. M. de la Dauversiere and M. de Faucamp went on a mission to Dauphine to ask from the proprietor the cession of the island. The demand that he should, without equivalent, give up a property from which he had expected his family would derive great benefit, was one to which he could not listen with patience. The envoys, however, insisted on arguing the point with him. The failure of the mission was not taken as a final re- fusal. M. de la Dauversiere and M. de Faucamp, reinforced by P. Charles Lallement, the director of the Jesuits, went a second time to Daiiphine to induce the proprietor to make a cession of the island. This tiu e they succeeded. Of the nature of the arguments by whicii they overcame the opposition of M.de Lauson some idea may be formed from the circumstances ucder which they ' 1 352 ROME IN CANADA. wore acting. The necessity of complyinpf with a demand from heaven would naturally be insisted on. M. de Lauson was not likely to he left in ignorance ot the apparition of the Holy Family, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, which had been made to M. de la Dauversirre in the Church of Notre Dame; when the Saviour said: oii pourai-je trouvcy vn scrvitcur jhhlc ? ' (where can I find a faithful servant?) In response to which the Divine Mother, lakin,!:; M. de la D.nivrrsicre by tlu; hand, pre- sented him to her Divine Son, sayino; : ' Void, Siif^mciir, cc scrvitcur fuJrlc ' (here is that faithful servant). The Saviour received him kindly, sayinj; : * You shall hence- forth be my faithful servant ; I will invest you with force and wisdom ; you shall have a fjuardian anj^el for "jjuide. Engaf^e ener^'ctically in my work ; my j^racc shall be suffi- cient for you, and yon shall not want.' The Saviour then put a rin,'^ on one of the finjijers of M. de la I)au\crsit'.'re, on which were cuf^raved the names, y>siis, Marie, yoscpli, and recommended him to f^'ivc a like rinj? to each ol the women who would consecrate herself to the Holy Family in the conf^repfation which he was rdx^ut to establish. In this vision, A. de la Dauversirre became acquainted with all the persons who were to assist him in establish- inj? the proposed community on the Island of Montreal.* We have the solemn assurance of M. Faillon that this is veritable history. > The * Associates for the conversion of the savages of New France in the Island of Montreal,' being now seized of the property, made it over, by a deed of gift, to the Seminary of Saint Sulpice, Paris. In the same indirect way, the Jesuits Biard and Masse, as we have seen, at- tempted to obtain for their Order a large part of the peninsula of Nova Scotia. * Faillon. I'v de Mile. Mance, et Histoire de I'Hotel Dieu de Villemarie dans I'ile dr Montreal, en Canada. //// WEALTH OF THE ClIURCII, .153 Tlu: tiiitii\(?, ;illef(C(l for the grants to tlio ffsiiifs nro onl}' loss iiiiiiK'ious than tlic fjraiits thcinsrivcs. l^irr)pii((i>i- wish to mark his fncudship t'i>r the Jesuits, hfr (Icrlarcd thr I'-ict in a j^'rant of land to thr Onlrr. Piil sonic Diic wish to contribute to the spiritual ;inl nl the countrv ;in«i the support of missions, hr. made a i^rani dI land to ihr jrsuits. Did one of the several ronipanies which (h» ( inxrinment of France created for the purpose of coIoMi/iu^r < 'anafh'i wish to aid in the support of the Jesuits, it :.,oaiit<'(l them a portion of its estates. I'ersotis wishinj; lo .lid in the propa{,'ation of reli^Mon by the con- version <'\ the savages did hkewise. Indc-ed, there w.'is hardly ;iiiy motive capable of moving a charitably disposed person whu h luight not be excited to swell the estates of the Jesuits. To the ;i((piisitive appetite of the Jesuits, whetted by long }-e;iis til ;d)stinence, or of secret and partial indul- gence, full rein can now be given. There is nothing to prevent them from resuming their zeal in heaping up wealth. ( Uef the barriers of mortmain they will leap, if they catiiioi break them down; if they make acqiiisitioiis without th< .iiiihority of law, they may safely depend on their ability to obtain an Act placing the whole lud-r mortmain : tlu; dead hand of a never-dying corporntion will be (!uablf.'d to hold their property in its grasp. Already there are indications that the Jesuits are bent on securing ;i re'storation of the estates which bear their name, and which came into the possession of the Crown on the extinction of the Order in Canada. That th.e Church has a right to the whole of the Jesuit estates is now asserted with an air of confidence which has, at ik) previous time since the conquest, been ecjualled. The bull of the I "ope suppressing the Order, we are told, directed in what manner the estates which had belonged to them should be employed. ' So long as there is a Jesuit 354 ROME IN CANADA. in the country,' says a writer, whose language makes it morally certain that he belongs to the Order, ' he ought to have the absolute control of this property and the power of disposing of it.' The English authority in Canada, the argument proceeds, was bound to follow the directions of the bull of Clement XIV. regardimj the destination of the property ; but that as this was not done, and the Jesuits were not dispossessed of these estates in a legal manuer, it became, if it was not before, the property of the Church (biens deVEglise) ; that the Government can- not employ it for other objects than those for which it was [given.* This claim purports to be based on the treaty of cession, from which in fact it does not derive the least countenance. The audacity of tone in whicli this claim is now put forward, seems to indicate that hence- forth the Jesuits will exert all their energies to secure the restoration of these estates. In 1845 a pamphlet was issued in Montreal anony- mously, but which was known to be written by a "'entleman who does not object to have the designation ol lay Jesuit applied to him, in which it was contended that these estates are still the property of the Church of Rome. The Legislature of Lower Canada did, at different times, address the Imperial Government with the view of getting these estates devoted to education ; and under the late union an appropriation of them to that purpose was even made. When a transfer of tlie Jesuit barracks was asked by the Legislative Assembly in 1 831, Lord God- erich, then Colonial Secretary, replied, that the requ ^t might ije complied with on one condition : That the Assembly should secure, in substitution, other barracks that would be sufficient for the accommodation of His Majesty's troops. This was, in fact, to answer the de- * See an essay in the Journal de Quibec, October 2, ic77, on the Premier projet de U foundation d'une universiie mixte a, Quebec. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 335 mand for a cession of the property with a proposal to exchange it for other lands with convenient barracks erected thereon. At the same time, Lord Goderich an- nounced the determination of the Crown to resign to the Colonial Legislature those estates, to be used as an edu- cational endowment.f This statement cannot be sup- posed to have carried greater weight than the order, which was twice sent from the Colonial Office to the Gov- ernment of Upper Canada, to endow rectories out of the clergy reserves. It was even enacted j 'that all moneys arising out of the Jesuits' estates then in, or that might thereafter come into, the hands of the Receiver-General, should be placed in a separate chest,' * and should be ap- plied to the purposes of education exclusively.' The intention of the British, as well as of the Colonial Government, from these documents, is clear. Neverthe- less the amount at the credit of that fund was almost immediately afterwards transferred to the general fund of the Province, with which subsequent revenues derived from the same source afterwards continued to be mixed. The question is, what was meant by education. Was it an education which should be placed almost entirely under the control of the Catholic Church ? As the Catho- lic clergy of Lower Canada are fast becoming Jesuits, the law passed by the Quebec Legislature last session means little short of the absolute control of all education, the dissentient schools excepted, by the Jesuits. That this is not what was meant by education at the time to which we are referring, is proved by the fact that authority had been given to erect a corporation in Lower Canada, to be called ' the Royal Institution for the ad- vancement ol learning,' to which ' the entire management of all schools and institutions of royal foundation in the + Despatch July 7, 1831. { 2 Will. IV. c. 41. A statute of Lower Canada. 23 356 ROME IN CANADA. Province, as well as the administration of all estates and property ' which might be appropriated for their support, was committed.* This Royal Institution lingered on for some time, through a feeble existence, owing to the oppo- sition it met from the Roman Catholic Church. This opposition was, according to BuUer, ' founded on the ex- clusively British and Protestant character by which, it was asserted, its organization and management were dis- tinguished.' I am not enquiring whether the establish- ment of such an institution was wise, reasonable, or proper ; but only undertaking to show, that at no time since the conquest would a proposal to give these estates to uphold £ system of education controlled by the Jesuits have been listened to. The Lower Canada statute of William IV., which was never acted upon, and which has been a dead letter for over forty years, cannot be invoked in support of the claim which there can be scarcely a doubt the Jesuits intend to push. The Legislature of Canada, in 1856, assumed to appro- priate the whole of the Jesuits' estates, and the funds arising therefrom, to the support of superior education in Lower Canada. The fund was to be administered under the control of the Governor in Council. Over twenty years have p issed since this Act was put on the statute book; and like the one previously noticed, it has re- mained a dead letter. The rest of the religious communities retained their estates, with trifling exceptions, which may be here stated. Soon after the conquest, the chaplain of the garrison of Quebec made a formal proposal to the Executive Coun- cil to take possession of the palace oi the Roman Catholic bishop, with all the property belonging to it, for the bene- * Arthur Buller. Report of the Commissioner of Enquiry into the State of Educa- tion in Lower Canada, 1838. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 357 fit of the Anglican Bishop of London. f The Imperial Government seems to have been of the opinion that it would be justified in taking possession of the property of the religious communities, on condition of granting a life pension to the possessors by arrangement. The Lords of the Treasury (1765) sent to Receiver-General Mills in- structions which seem to have contemplated the practical carrying out of a policy based on this conviction. The ground was distinctly taken that these properties form or ought to form a part of the revenue of the Crown. Next year the Government took possession of the Church of the Recollets, Quebec, and converted it into a Protes- tant church. Some land belonging to the Ursulines was also taken without any indemnity.;): These appear to be the only exceptions to the rule that all the religious communities other than the Jesuits were permitted to retain their estates after the conquest. The Church of Rome had, to commence with, when the colony came under the dominion of the British Crown, 1.223,333 acres of land, the Jesuits' estates, which had become the property of the Crown, being deducted. The title to the estate of the Sulpicians was not always imques- tioned, but it was finally confirmed. Sir James Harriot, the King's Advocate-General, in a report on the state of Canada, 1765, expressed the opinion that the title was invalid, and Lord John Russell arrived at the same con- clusion when Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the year previous to Marriot's report, the British Government is said to have shown a disposition to buy these estates. § But the Council of the Seminary of Paris, after frequent deliberations, refused to part with the property, on the ground that the suppression of the establishments of Saint 1 Garneau, « Pagnuello. ii Archives du Seminaire de Paris. Assemblee du 21 Janvier, 1764. 358 ROME IN CANADA. Sulpice in Canada would have rendered it necessary to recall forty ecclesiastics who were connected with them, and that it would have been impossible to replace and retain so large a number of priests. Nearly all the mem- bers of the Society of Saint Sulpice resided in France, and the question was whether, under the capitulation, they were entitled to sell or retain their property. The thirty-fifth article provided that if the priests of St. Sulpice exercised the option of leaving the colony and going to France, they should be at liberty to sell their estates. Sir James Marriot was of opinion that the Sulpicians, ' who as prin- cipals at the time of the conquest were not resident in person, did not fall under the privilege of the capitula- tion, nor come within what is termed by civilians the casus fcederis, so as to retain the property of their estates under it.' And the reason of this was that they were not in a position to accept a favour as a condition of ceasing their resistance, or objects of distress, or persons who had shown a courage which merited some special mark of favour. Nor could they retire from a country in which they did not live. The Sulpicians at Paris transferred to their brethren in Canada what, it is argued, they had no right to transfer. Attorney-General Sewell, in 1828, gave an elaborate opinion against the claim of the Seminary to the estates which bear its name. This opinion embraces several points which it may be interest- ing to recapitulate. The motive of the gift of the Island of Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, in 1663, by an association for the conversion of Indians in that Island, created a trust which was never fulfilled, and the title was bad for non-user. The French king after- wards authorized the establishment of a Seminary at Montreal to carry out the grant. The ownership was in the Seminary of St. vSulpice, and the Seminary of Mont- real did not subsist as a separate corporation. The deed THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 359 of gift, April, 1764, by which the Seminary of Saint Sul- pice, Paris, assumed to convey the property to the Sem- inary of Montreal, is void. The Island of Montreal being vested in a foreign community, incapable of holding lands in Her Majesty's dominion, the right of property would devolve to the Crown. The estates were public property held by the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, under trust for a particular purpose, and they fell to the Crown by right of conquest. The absence of a right to transfer the property must make the deed oi gift null. The right of property in the Seminary was only that of administrators, and not such as would entitle them to convey. The grantees not being a distinct corporation, were incapaci- tated from taking under the deed. Without a new char- ter, the Seminary could not be prolonged after the death of such of its members as were alive at the time of the conquest. The Attorney-General was of opinion tl t the rights of the Crown to (he property could be enforced in the courts. But this colourable title, however doubttul it may have been, was confirmed by ordinance of the Special Council of Lower Canada in 1840. For the purposes of this ordinance, the ecclesiastics of the Seminary are erected into an ecclesiastical corpo- ration [Commnnaute Ecclesiastique). It does not follow that the title which this ordinance confirms is absolute, for there is no pretence that it is other than that which the Seminary of St. Sulpice, Paris, had in the year 1759. According to the opinion of Sir James Marriot, the Sul- picians of Paris had no title at all. ' By the French law,' he says, 'it is clear that no persons, aliens, not being natur- alized, can hold lands ; so that by the right of conquest, these estates may be considered to have fallen to the Crown, in sovereignty.' The objects of the confirmation of title were specific and limited : 'The cure of souls with- 36o ROME IN CANADA. in the parish (La Desserte de la Paroisse) of Montreal ; the mission of the Lake of the Two Mountains, for the instruction and spiritual care of the Algonquins and Iro- quois Indians; the support of the Petit Seminaire or Col- lege at Montreal; the support of schools for children within the parish of Montreal ; the support of the poor invalids and orphans ; the sufficient support and main- tenance of the members of the corporation, its officers and servants ; and the support of such other religious, charit- able, and educational institutions as may from time to time be approved and sanctioned by the Lieutenant- Governor,' and ' for no other objects, purposes, or intents whatsoever.' The corporation came under an obligation to commute the seignorial tenure of its estates at specified rates. The total amount which the Sulpicians might re- ceive in conimutation was limited, and any overplus was to go to the Crown. These were the conditions of the confirmation of a title which is probably now indefeasible. There was one clause in this ordinance which may hereafter require to be extended to many other religious corporations. The right of visitation which the French Crown possessed before the conquest, and which the Special Council was careful to state is now possessed by the British Sovereign, is specifically preserved. The political motives for a confirmation of the title, which Bishop Plessis had urged on the Imperial Govern- ment in a memorial to Earl Bathurst (1819), had proba- bly not been without effect. If there were any doubt about the validity of the title, the Sulpicians were pre- pared to give irrefragable proof of its legality. As to the greatness of the wealth so much talked about, there was, he said, very little left after the cost of administration had been paid and the support of the community provided for. But even if the Government could derive a profit from the seizure of these estates, was that to be put in the 'balance THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 36r against the discontent and disaffection which such a pro- ceeding would excite in the minds of theCatholic subjects of His Majesty in the Province, and principally in the district of Montreal, which was a daily witness of the exemplary and honourable uses to which the pro- perty was put ? ' His Majesty's Government had always treated his Catholic subjects with unexampled considera- tion {une bonte sans example), even before their loyalty had been so manifest as it had become in the late war. Surely, at such a time, so rigorous a measure, and one that would cause general alarm, ought not to be expected. If one religious community were despoiled, the habitans would regard it as the signal for despoiling all the others. To attack the revenues of the clergy would be to paralyze their influence over the people ; an influence which for sixty years had been constantly used to inspire the faith- ful with the duty of submission to the king and his gov- ernment. This influence could not be enfeebled without loosening the strongest tie that attached these people to His Majesty's government.' This is the language of diplomacy, and it may have saved the estates from forfeiturv-^ at the time ; while fur- ther political considerations probably led to the confir- mation of the title in 1840. Bishop Lartigue, of Mont- real, a relative of Louis Joseph Papineau, the leader of the rebellion of 1837 in Lower Canada, came to the aid of the Government in that crisis. The Church seems to have reaped the reward of these services, in having had secured to it the estates of the Sulpicians. A Church in possession of vast estates is liable, like in- dividuals, to have its title to some portion of it contested. A regrettable affair, arising out of rival claims to pro- perty at the mission of Oka, Lake of Two Mountains, occurred in 1875. The Indians claimed some property on which a Methodist chapel was built, and tlie Seminarists *i 36a ROME IN CANADA. of St. Sulpice, who also claimed the property, brought the matter before the Superior Court. Judgment was rendered in their favour, and they proceeded, as proprie- tors of the land, to demolish the Methodist chapel, through the agency of the sheriff. The benches were first removed, and the materials of which the chapel was composed were, by order of the sheriff, carried within the enclosure of the Seminary. A few days later some Catholic Indians and the missionary priest caused them to be conveyed to the grounds of the Protestant school. The demolition of the chapel occupied only three hours. After the chapel had been removed further legal pro- ceedings were commenced on behalf of the Methodist Indians against the Seminary, and the case is still before the courts. The proprietary rights have in the mean- time been decided by the Superior Court in favour of the Seminary. Whether it was judicious for the Seminary, standing on its extreme rights, to proceed to an extremity that would be sure to create a great scandal and enlist the sympathies of a portion of the population in favour of its antagonists, is more than doubtful. It would have been better to make an arrangement by which the ground occu- pied by the chapel should have been conveyed to the opposite party, if the If^tter had shown a disposition to enter into an arrangement to that effect. Some outrages were at a later period committed by the Indians, on both sides, first by those under the charge of the Seminary, and afterwards by those opposed to it, in which a Roman Catholic Church was (1877) burnt down. Such outrages are generally committed by the less respon- sible hangers on of one side or the other ; and their adoption by the principals would discredit any cause, however sacred. The appointment of M. Lartigue, Suffragan Auxiliary and Vicar-General of Quebec, for the city and district of THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 363 Montreal, in 1822, caused some alarm among the Sulpi- cians for the security of their property. The danger came this time from an exertion of episcopal or extra-episcopal authority ; and M. Roux, Superior of the Seminary, was sent to Rome to obtain the permission ol the Holy See to sell the estates of the Order to the British Government. The authority was given, but the Bishop of Quebec refused his assent, and sent two agents to Rome whose arguments induced the Pope to recall it.* It was necessary to pro- test, on behalf of the bishop, that he had no design to seize upon the property of the Sulpicians. The disclaimer did not altogether quiet the tears of the latter, and the breach ihen made between them and the episcopal author- ity was never healed. Mgr. Provencher admits that the idea that the bishops of Canada were capable of rob- bing the Church of its immense property is one that became generally accepted by the Catholic world of Europe : he characterized the accusation as ' a lie and a calumny.' It seems, however, to have been believed even at Rome ; nnd this belief made the Pope willing to sanction a sale of the property to the British Govern- ment. M. Bedard, the Sulpician priest who had deserted the cause of his Order and espoused that of the bishop, had, we have seen, used the language of menace. Montreal, he suggested, could be wrested from the hands of the Sulpicians and served by a cure and priests who did not belong to the Seminary, and they might be displaced from the control of the missions of the Lake of Two Mountains, Sault St. Louis, and St. Regis. Against this danger the Sulpicians appeared afterwards to be guarded by the ordinance of 1840, which, as before stated, made it a con- dition of the confirmation of their title that they should continue to have the cure of souls in the parish of Mont- • Mem. de Mgr. J. N. Provencher. I 'I I 364 ROME IN CANADA. real, and the charge of the mission of the Lake of Two Mountains for the instruction and spiritual care of the Algonquin and Iroquois Indians. But the Bishop of Montreal, if he could not drive a coach and four through the ordinance, was one day to become strong enough, by the aid of the Pope, to treat it as waste paper. There were besides three episcopal decrees and one arret of the French king which gave the cure of souls, in the parish of Montreal, in perpetuity to the Sulpicians. The guarantee of perpetuity Bishop Bourget afterwards treated as nothing, and louiid, in the fact that episcopal decrees had been rendered, that au- thority to take away the rights of the Sulpicians was vested in him.* The argument is a dangerous one, because it might easily be turned in the other direction. The civil government has twice passed laws and regulations re- garding this property, and has severa. times done so on the subject of tithes. The argument that this proved that both were at the absolute disposal of the Government is not less legitimate than that used by the bishop,, When the decree came from Rome, December 22, 1865, authorizing Bishop Bourget to divide the city into as many parishes ?.> he might judge necessary, and each of theco paris'i's, as well as the cureof Notre-Dame, was to be administered, not by the Superior ot the Seminary, but by priests whom the bishop might appoint, the assumption was conveyed that Bishop Bourget and the Pope united could set aside one of the conditions of the ordinance of 1840. The Government, through Sir George Cartier, protested that this was an invasion of the rights of the civil authority. The bishop replied that his inten- tion, as well as that of the Pope, was to erect canonic parishes.t Sir George Cartier, representing the civil * Lettre Pastorale, 26 A.vTi\, 1866. i Lettre Pastorale, 23 Mf i, 1S66. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 365 authcr'ty, was brushed aside like a cobweb, and victory perched upon the united banner of the Pope and the bishop. The ordinance of 1840 was treated as of no account. If the wealth of one portion of the Church excites the envy of another portion, is there not danger that it it should increase beyond all bounds, it may excite cupidity in other quarters ? Starting with 1,223,333 acres of land in 1763, the Roman Catholic Church of Quebec must now be in possession of an enormous mass of wealth. Its acquisitions may have been somewhat checked by the operation of the laws of mortmain; but the quantity of land that has legally been placed under mortmain during the last twenty years has been very considerable. It would be an interesting inquiry to attempt to find by what means the bishopric of Mont- real had, in fifty-five years, become the largest holder of real estate in the city of Montreal, with one exception.. If anything like a similar accumulation of wealth has taken place in other places, the domain of the Church must be extending at a rate that may well give cause of uneasiness. The immunity from municipal taxation which large masses of Church property enjoys puts a yoke on the neck of lay proprietors which already begins to sit uneasily. The question of putting an end to it has recently been raised in Montreal. The municipalities are unable to make any change, for the exemptions are contained in laws which they do not make, but only administer. A change in the law has already many advocates ; but in the present state of things they cannot hope to succeed against the predo- minant power of the Church of Rome in the Province of Quebec. Already the episcopate is on the alert, and has made a sign which shows that it intends to resist the change with all the power it can command. In a circu- 1 1 3«6 ROME IS CANADA. lar issued in November, 1875, the seven bishops, on the strength of their united authority, instruct the priests that if the municipalities or other civil authorities speak of taxing the property of the churches and of the religious communities, the priest is to communicate the fact to the bishop under pain ol excommunication. To be logical, the bishops would have to pursue with the terrors of ex- communication the members of the Legislature who should venture to touch this sacred immunity ; and that they would do so we can hardly permit ourselves to doubt in presence of the attitude the New School has assumed It is easy to foresee what the line of defence will be when the attack upon the immunity from taxation be comes serious. We shall then be told, though the con trary is oiten asserted, that the rule observed in France at the time of the conquest must be our guide. Luckily for the bishops, the French clergy, shortly before the con- quest of Canada, were able to defeat the attempt of the Comptroller-General to obtain a statement of the value ot the ecclesiastical property in France, with a view of making it bear a due proportion of public charges with the property of the rest of the nation. Up to that time, the French clergy had been in a position to dispaie the amount of taxes demanded from them, and what they paid went under the name of a free gift {don gratnit).* The triumph of the French clergy was odious to the more en- lightened part of the nation. Of this triumph they were to pay the penalty in the storm of the coming revolution. The temper they were then in is shown by the fact that, in obedience to the Bull Unigenitus, they were pronouncing excommunications, and, contrary to an arret of Parliament, were refusing the sacraments to such as could not pro- duce tickets ot confession. Coffin, successor of Rollin in the University of Paris, and several others, were deprived * D'Anquetil. Hiitoire de France. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 367 :|' alir of spiritual consolation in the article of death. In the quarrel between the clergy and the parliament, the king took sides with the former. Clergy and king were heap- ing up wrath which was one day to overthrow both the throne and the iosses- sions.' This prohibition was the starting point o I British legislation after the conquest, but it has long since been removed. In the capitulation of Montreal it was stipu- lated (Art. XXXII.) that 'thecommunitiesof nuns shall be preserved in their constitution and privileges ; that they shall continue to observe their rules, and to be exempted from lodging any military ; that it shall be forbid to troub'e them in their religious exercise, or to enter their monasteries.' The same privileges were demanded (Art. XXXII.), but refused, with regard to the communities of Jesuits and Recollets, and of the house of the priests of St. Sulpice. (Art. XXXIV.) Yet the communities and all the priests were to preserve their movables, and the property and revenues of the seignories, and other estates which they possessed in the colony ; and the same estates were to be preserved in their privileges, rights, honours, and exemptions. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 385 The definitive treaty of peace left untouched the ground covered by these articles ; and it is a question whether they continued to have force after the treaty was signed. The British Parliament assumed that the treaty alone was obligatory, when it excepted the religious orders and communities from those subjects who were entitled to hold their property and possessions. We have nowhere seen it stated that France took any exception to this practical interpretation of the international engagement. An agent of the French Government at the court of London wrote, October nth, 1763, to the ducdeChoiseul,^ Minister of the King of France : ' It is not known what religious system the English will cause to be adopted in Canada ; but it is /lot doubted that in permitting the exercise of the Catholic religion, they will, in the mean- time, suppress the convents of each sex, which they regard as useless in the colonies.' If this writer was well informed, and he must have been in a position to obtain corr t information, the capitulation must have been con- sidered as s'lperseded by the treaty, and the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion regarded as possible where convents are not allowed to exist. But perhaps he listened to the loose talk of persons who had not fully mastered the facts of the case. The convents are in possession of large amounts of real estate, ^vhich is constantly i.icreasing, and which does not contribute its share to the municipal burdens. Of these institutions tlier i are in the Dominion two hundred and twenty-four, of which one hundred and sixty are situated in the Province of Quebec. "*' Some of the older convents in Quebec must be very wealthy, and in all parts ♦ The following figures comt to hand while this work is passing through the press : RoUand's Almanacl--. fcr 1H78 makes the Roman Catholic population of Canada 1,792,000; and states the number of Bishops at 32 ; Priests, 1,521 ; Churches or Mis- sion Chapels, 1,391 ; Seminaries, 16 ; Ecclesiastics, 486; Colleges, 117; Convents, 224 Hospitals, 30; Asylums, 42; Academies, 99 ; Religious Communities, 76; Schools, 3,332 71 386 ROME IN CANADA. of the country conventual wealth is rapidly increasing, from direct acquisitions and from the natural increase in the value of property. These institutions have extraordinary facilities for in- creasing their wealth. Sometimes they are able to borrow from the faithful at about half the current rate of interest ; and sometimes they give no other security than the receipt of the Superior. If the school fees they charge Protestant parents for educating their daughters be low, there is no reason to suppose they do not leave a profit. At the present rate of accumulation, it is difficult to set bounds to the future wealth of the convents ; and their mfluence will be in proportion to their riches, if, as houses of education, they continue td have opportunities thrown in their way of moulding the minds of girls born of Protestant parents. If education be secularized anywhere, the education of the daughters of Protestant parents in convents ought, by the very nature of the contract, to be secular. Of two things one: either no religious instruction can be given to these pupils, or it must be in accordance with the doc- trines of the Church of Rome ; if none is given the con- tract is so far observed. In that case what becomes of the cry of godless education ? In the Province of Quebec the Archbishop decides that a particular catechism 'shall be the onlv one the use of which shall be permitted in the public instructions of the diocese.'* But no attempt will be made to teach a Roman Catholic catechism to Protest- ant pupils. Such a measure would defeat its own ends, by immediately awakening alarm. By undertaking to educate Protestant chile ren, as the convents do, the Church for- feits its right to denounce secular education as godless. In session of the Quebec Legislature 1876-77 the Sisters of Providence obtained the passage of an Act by a * Mandement de Monseigneur I'Eveque de Quebec, March 2, 1829. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 387 large majority — the vote was forty against thirteen — giving them authority to carry on every kind of manufac- tures in the convent. An attempt was made by the minority to abolish the exemption from taxation which the property of the Sisters enjoys, as a corollary of the new competitive powers granted them, but it failed of success. A general proposition to subject to taxation the property of all religious communities which engage in manufactures shared the same fate. But it is something that the question ot taxing ecclesiastical the same as lay property has been raised in v/hat Pope Pius IX. styles the • city which has the right to be called the metropolis of the Catholic religion in North America.'* In the other Provinces of the Dominion the wealth of the Church is relatively much less than in Quebec. But it is everywhere increasing in a variety of shapes : in lands, m churches and chapels, in seminaries and col- leges, in convents and hospitals, in asylums, academies, and communities. If Bishop Strachan's estimate ot the value of the property of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec in 1854 be even approximately correct, and if we make a moderate allowance for the rest of the Provinces, that Church must be in the enjoyment of what is equal to the revenue derivable from sixty-five millions of dollars worth of property. But the truth is that the Church, and the Church alone, is in possession of the means of arriving at the extent of its wealth, and without its aid perhaps no close or reliable estimate can be made. It is not im- possible, however, that it is even more wealthy than the figures we have given indicate. Nearly all the priests in the Province of Quebec who leave property behind them make a practice of bequeath- ing it to the Church for one purpose or another.t ♦ Bull canonicaliy erecting the University of l.aval. + Memoir de Mgr. J. N. Provencher, Eveque de julipoolis, 20 Mars, 1836. 25 t .'I I' 388 ROME IN CANADA. In Manitoba, and possibly some other portions o^ the North-west, the Church of Rome bids fair to become as wealthy as it is in Qu ebec. Of the one million four hun- dred thousand acres set apart for the half-breeds of that Province, a large part is certain to become sooner or later the property of the Church. It is in this indirect way that most of her large acquisitions are made. The half-breeds are attached to the roaming life of the hunter, which they will not readily change for the steady and painful labour of the agriculturist. The superstition of the Indian, of which they retain strong traces, makes them particu- larly sensible to religious impressions of whatever kind ; and the influence over them of a priesthood which holds the keys of heaven and hell, and can shorten the stay of their souls in purgatory, must be all but omnipotent. That it will be used, in their case as it has in others, to add to the Church's wealth it is not uncharitable to believe. There, as almost every where else on this continent, the Roman Catholic missionaries were first in the field. In the year of the Peace of Utrecht they had a mission at the Grand Portage on Lake Superior, and they afterwards slowly penetrated the interior, inciting the French Gov- ernment to make those discoveries in which the Varennes de Verandrye were engaged, and which shortly before the conquest led the French as far as the Rocky Mountains.* At a much earlier period they had been on some parts of Lake Superior. The North-west country was erected in- to a V'carship in 1847 ; until then it had been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop ot Quebec. The diocese of St. Boniface, Manitoba, over which Archbishop Tache presides, was divided in 1862 by the erection of the Mac- kenzie River Vicarship ; in 1867 the Vicarship of the Saskatchewan was added, and in 1870 there were Catho- lic missions at over a hundred different points. * Pierre Margry, in the Moniteur, Sept. 14 ana Nov. i, 1853. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 38* M' Though there are at present no indications of the real- ization of the predictions of the late Anglican Bishop of Toronto, we must not forget that an agitation tor the abolition of tithes in Lower Canada sprung up some time ago, and was maintained with persistency, if not with much energy, for several years. ' No degree of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,' said L'Avenir, ' is exempt from the vices which the love of power and of riches entails. The Catholic clergy is far too rich ; the tithe gives it an undue influence, which it has so much abused to the misfortune of the country. ^ But the assault was ill conducted, and L'Avenir greatly over-shot the mark. When it argued that a democratic republic had no need of priests, it naturally shocked the religious sentiment of a people so devoted to their Church as are the great body of French Canadians. That agi- tation has subsided into a dead calm, whether to be re- newed again or not is a question that belongs to the future. The New School takes new ground on the subject of tithes as on almost every other question ; ground which the Church never thought of assuming during the French dominion. The new doctrine is that 'the interference by the civil power in the administration of ecclesiastical property is a sacrilegious usurpation, a manifest and revolt- ing absurdity ; ' besides being a folly as great as it would. be for the same authority to undertake to niake the course of the stars dependent on its will. 'The Church alone,' the modern doctrine runs, ' has a right to legislate on the subject oftithes ; the rules it makes are strictly obligatory,, and the civil power has nothing to do with this or any similar matter. It is permitted to do one thing only,, and not only permitted but commanded, if it desires tO' exercise its legislative power with regard to ecclesiasti- cal property : and that is to promulgate, as laws of the: 390 ROME TN CANADA. State, the laws of the Church in a like matter; to use every means at its disposal to put them into execution and cause them to be observed.'* The amount of the tithes depended on the will of the civil government. Numerous edicts were passed on the subject of tithes, in which original and absolute legislative jurisdiction was exercised. There was then no pretence that the Church had the rigbL to 'ix the amount. It the Ch rch rouM levy what rate of tithe it thought proper, it would be in its power to impoverish the entire body r,f farmers who adhered to the Roman ^aith. The Abbe Pelletier contends that i le Church's right of possession is one which the civil power cannot limit. The right to possess must carry with it the right to acqu re, and if both propositions are admitted in their full import, the lawr of mortmain must be swept away. Writers like this may support their cl-^ims by reference to the Syllabus, but in all Christendom there are few governments which aie so fir prepared to abdicate their functions as to allow the Church all it claims; under this head. If anything could endanger the endowments of the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec, it would be the putting forth of ex- treme pretensions such as these. Any attempt materially to increase the amount of tithes which the Church might make, would oblige both the Legislature and the juc'icial tribxxnalsto interfere. Even if the Church could tem- porarily succeed in practically applying these doctrines, it would only pave the way for its owr final ruin. The more sagacious members of the clergy see clearly enough that a Church which can be reproached with the possession of enormous wealth is in a dangerous position. There used to be Salpician priesis who believed that the Seminary of Montreal could, by pursuing an * Abbi Pelletier. Le Don Qutrhotte Montr^aiais sur fa RoRsinani.e.ou M. Desraulle* et la Grande Gutrre Ecclisiastique. THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 39X tem- indiscreet line of conduct, cover itself with discredit and ruin. 'The Seminary' was told that it was ' not assured of its existence. Its rights and possessions are contested; and we have reason to fear for the future. 'f Villeneuve has employed arguments which, pushed to their legitnnate extent, would authorize the bishop to despoil the Sulpicians of their estates. ' Their property,' he says, ' has been given to God for the service of the Catholics, in the Island of Montreal.' And to the ques- t' jn whether the property does not belong to the Sulpi- cians, he replies: ' It belongs to God, to the Church, ta the faithful in the Island of Montreal.' The means by which the Bishopric of Montreal has be- come the second largest propr.etuf in the city consist chiefly of gifts. Many of the properties of which it thus became possessed are charged with life annuities, varying in amounts from five hundred to six thousand dollars a year. The bishop is also made administrator of many other funds, such as the hundred thousand dollars given for the support of worship, education, and missions in Joliette. J3y the fire of 1852 the Bishopric lost, after deducting the amount ot insurance it received, a hundred and sixty thousand dollars. The episcopal palace and other buildings were not built without the aid of a large amount of borrowed capital. But when the life annuities- expire, and the real estate increases in value, the Bishop- ric will become very, not to say enormously, wealthy. It is pretended that the ten priests connected with the Bishopric suffer the privations of poverty : their iiicome, over and above their food and clothing, being put at thirty cents per day each.;}: They envy the Sulpicians the t Declaration et observations presentees par J. B. Ch. Bedard, Ptre, du Seminaire de Mortreal, a M, Rioux, Superieur de cette Maison, et aux autres Pretres, ses- Confreres, Msmbres ' j meme Seminaire, au sujet du Gouvernement Ecclesiastique da District de Montreal, Juin 1824. t Villeneuve, ,592 ROM' IN CANADA. possession of their wealtii, and will i)robal)ly never be satisfied until they can get a share of it. It seems to be not impossible that the diocesan might dispute the title of the Sulpicians to their property in some possible event, such, for instance, as the extinction of the special objects for which the title was confirmed ; but even then the State would have a much better right to do it. A commission of theologians, to whom some ques- tion were put by the bishops of Montreal and Rimouski, and who held their sittings at Quebec, cited autiiorities to show that religious communilies are not proprietors, that their rights are only those of persons in the enjoy- ment of the usufruct and of administrators. And the autiiority cpioted (the Nouveau Denisart) adds: 'The propel ty is the property of tiie Church, to which it has been given by the State into which the Church has been received for the benefit of the people of whom it is com- posed.' Doctrines which the New School reject with in- dignation and abhorence. 'The property,' the quotation continues, ' belongs to the Church to which it has been given. The reason which causes us to regard the Church and the State as the real proprietors of eccl"sias(i( (il pro perty is founded on the distinction between different kinds of communities. The different persons, whether physical or moral, who form what we call the clergy are not really the proprietors of the property of which they are in pos- session.' When the bishops referred this question to those emi- nent theologians, they did not desire that the answers should be of this complexion ; and when they were re- ceived they were rejected with haughty disdain. ' Caesar- ism and (laUicanism, the most accentuated,'* shouted in chorus the army of writers by which the Bishop of Mont- real had undertaken to subdue all hostile opinions. L« Ridaction du Franc-ParUur, bl: THE WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. 393 * The Church a chattel of the State!' The Episcopate of Quebec in council has reversed the maxim, and presented, as a pleasing thing, a picture of the State as a chattel of the Church. The doctrine that the property of the Sulpicians of Montreal is the property of the Roman Catholic Church is one that may be pushed to much greater extent, and be turned against the parties by whom it is now used against the Seminary. A slight change of phraseology is all that is necessary. If the broader ground be taken that the property was given tor the support of religion, and if the great majority of the people changed their religion, the property would, according to this doctrine and to equity, follow the change. The argument has not only been used before, but it has frequently been applied in practice. It is a perilous weapon for the bishopric of Montr, dl to wield against the Sulpicians. The views of these Quebec theologians would carry us much further ; for as they assume that the property be- longs to I e Church and the State, there are conceivable cases in which resumption by the State would become a duty. Judge Baudryt draws a very important conclusion from the fact that the parishioners are obliged to contri- bute to the construction of churches and presbyteries. After admitting that the property of the Fabrique is the property of the Church, and that the control of it properly belongs to the religious authority, he adds, as a matter of fact, that 'this property is subject to the control of the civil authority, for the reason that the obligation is im- posed on the parishioners to contribute to the purchase of materials and the construction of the edifices, and that they are in possession thereof.' Pagnuello contests this conclusion, but only by quoting the decrees of the Council .of Trent, which are not in force in Canada. The pretence f Code des Curii. 394 ROME IN CANADA. that the Council of Trent could impose involuntary taxes on Her Majesty's subjects in Canada, involves the further assumption that the State only interferes, as in ohedieiice boimd, to lend the strength of tiie secular arm to enforce the decrees of a General Council. It the State were under this obligation, it would be equally bound to en^jrce ;ill the propositions (reversed) in the Syllabus, and every- thing which the Pope may take on himself to define dogmatically, since General Councils have become useless in presence of an infallible Pontiff. When the State com- pels the citizens to pay any tax, whether for secular or religious purposes, there lies at the bottom of its action the theory that some public or national end is to be served, and if that tax be expended on permanent objects, it is clear that if thes objects cease to serve the end for which they were created, they may be devoted to some other purpose, in order to carry out the original intention of promoting the national weal. The argument that a person who hires a pew in a church cannot be a co-pro- prietor, since he is certainly a tenant, is easily answered. A stockholder in a theatre company occupies the double position : he is at once co-proprietor and tenant ; and there is nothing to prevent a parishioner who holds a pew in a church being co-proprietor of the building to the con- struction of which he was obliged to cont-.ibute. Is that a moral theory which denies the right of ownership to the creators of a property ? If it be sound it will take us a long way, much farther than some have had to travel to reach the penitentiary. The perpetuity of spontaneous gifts has in these latter days been treated as contrary to public policy. A man cannot, in this country, entail, even on his own direct descendants, that wealth which he spent a life of toil and self-denial in acquiring. What reason is there that be- quests to Churches should be on a different footing ? If THi; WEALTH OF THE CHURCH. jy, corporations do not die, so successive ^fenerations of human beings (ill up the gaps which death creates, and in any case entail must cease in default of heirs. If in the train of this rapidly accumulating corporate wealth a desolating corruption do not follow, the world will have a new experience, of which the past presents no example and affords no reasonable ground of hope. 396 ROME IN CANADA. XVIII. A RECOIL AT ONE POINT OF THE LINE. The decisions of the Courts in the contested elections of Charlevoix and Bonaventure, by which the undue influence of the cures was condemned, attested the gravity of the crisis which had been brought about by the conflict into which the ecclesiastics had entered against the civil authority. On one side were the bishops and the priests, proclaiming aloud that they were backed by the approval of the Pope ; on the other, the unfaltering voice and sinewy arm of the civil power, as represented in the highest court in the country. The delicacy of the situa- tion was at once seen at Rome ; and the worldly wisdom of the Vatican was called into action. In the early part of 1877, Dr. Conroy, Bishop of Ardagh, Ireland, was in Rome, where he attended several meetings of the Con- gregation of the Propaganda, and was admitted to more than one audience with the Pope, at which the crisis in Canada was the subject of discussion. The m:.tropolis of Roman Catholicism in America needed instant atten- tion. Thither Dr. Conroy was accredited as Ablegate. His instructions were drawn up by the Propaganda. When France was master of the country, this functionary would have been required to lay his instructions before the Government ; we are now left to divine their tendency through the medium of the causes which gave rise to this Papal embassy and from what it may lead to. The facts are eloquent, and from no one are they a A RECOIL AT ONE POINT OF THE LINE. 397 hidden secret. On the verge of the precipice to which she had marched, Rome halted, recoiled. There were the Joint Letter, and the brief of Pope Pius IX. aj^proving of that episcopal mandate ; there were pastorals trom more than one bishop identifying the approval of the Pope with the action of the priests. Retreat seemed cut off. The Joint Letter, the brief, and the separate pastorals could not be withdrawn or repudiated. But they could be explained in a way that would leave a loop-hole of escape from the difficulty. So the bishops met m Consistory, and in a joint pastoral, dated October ii, 1877, let the world know thatthevhrd never intended to authorize the priests to descend to the battle-ground of political parties and get into direct antagonism with individuals. The Joint Letter had been misunderstood ; and strange as it may seem, the bishops had misunderstood themselves. But we are still to find in the Joint Letter 'the true doc- trine on the constitution and rights of the Church ;' that is, we are there to learn that the State is in the Church, and that the Church is superior to the State. The Pope's brief addressed to the Bishop of Three Rivers is not to be regarded as condemning any political party whatever, but as having reference solely to Liberal Catholics and their principles, wherever they may be found. The bishops leave each one of the faithful to judge 'who are the men to whom these condemnations apply, what- ever the political party to which they belong.' This retreat is only made at one point of the line ; every where else the old attitude is preserved. Besides, liberal Catholics are under the same condemnation as before ; the new difficulty will be to affix that stigma to any can- didate ; if once made to adhere, it will not be less fatal in the future than it has been in the past. If this halt at one point of the line, this recoil before the menaced pen- 398 ROME IN CANADA. allies of a parliamentary enactment, were to be followed b)' a stoppage of the entire aggressive movement of the Ultramontanes in Canada, of which there is not the least probability, that movement would still form one of the most striking episodes which the recent action of the Church of Rome anywhere presents. THE END. ived the 2ast the the