-
Articles/Ads
Article THE "TABLET" versus THE BISHOPS. ← Page 2 of 4 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The "Tablet" Versus The Bishops.
To the first admonition , however , may it not be asked , whether the words discreetly warned does not imply or presume a discretion as to the quality of guilt or no guilt ? To the second , whether the whole sentence does not also imply or presuppose a discretion as to the SECT , or no sect ; British Freemasons being no sect , neither entertaining nor propagating any peculiar religious op inions ? Are they , therefore , " prohibited and condemned ?"
If any Divine will favour me with a solution of the above two attempted illustrations I shall feel greatly obliged , addressed to Mr . St . Alban Mason , care of Mr . Jones , bookseller , C 3 , Paternoster-row , London . * * ¦* . - - > :- * -: T That the decrees of the pontiffs were not provoked by the illegal opinions and anti-Christian dogmas propagated bBritish Freemasons
y no one can assert ; that they were not published specially to extirpate British Freemasonry , which repudiates the very opinions ancl doctrines condemned , may be safely affirmed without danger of trenching upon ecclesiastical ground . Have , then , our bishops , iii consequence of the political occurrences in Canada , impugned in the letter of the It . C . Archbishop of Tuam ancl the late combination of trades' unions in Englandand Ireland , condemned in their pastorals , felt it necessary to include in their
denunciations , —British Freemasons , Odd Fellows , Rechabites ( Temperance ) , Ancient Druids , Foresters , and other harmless , charitable , and convivial societies , feiv , if any , of which are now knoivn to be bound by oaths , with such like combinators and conspirators ? No clergyman will afford a more positive solution of this question than a reference to the Alia Observanda , by ivhich he is guided . The clergy , whose correspondence has appeared in the ' - ' Tablet , " exhibit most extraordinary and contradictory opinions , also upon the
term for the duration ancl force of the edicts . Some have written that there is no term ; some say forty years : some ten years ; ancl I have somewhere seen seven years affirmed . If the decrees of general councils upon discipline ancl morals are not all binding in every country , in some from want of promulgation , as the council of Trent in England , bulls , ancl the like from Rome , not being legal , even in countries where promulgated , —for instance the canon ivhich enjoins the forfeiture to the church of the field where a duellist has fallenwhich is not enforced in most
, countries , —may it not be equally so with Papal decrees , that they are not binding unless received by the respective bishops ? Yet this is ivhat T . J . B ., an " eminent ecclesiastic , " designates in his letter to the "Tablet" "Gallicanism . " Is it not then most reasonable to infer , in the absence of positive definition , that therefore the pastorals and letters of the bishops were intended to condemn only the political "secret societies , ' ' in Canada , and the trades combination lately prevalent here ,
unless it can be shown that the incidental mention of thenjame of Freemason be sufficient to prohibit the faithful from entering s ' ecret societies of any description , or that the bishops have therefore pronounced secrecy , secret signs , or secret oaths or affirmations for harmless purposes , to be contra bones mores . This I apprehend our bishops have never yet done . If so , Freemasonry is not coiiclu » nnecl ipso facto , as asserted bv the " Tablet . " VOL . in . ,,
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
The "Tablet" Versus The Bishops.
To the first admonition , however , may it not be asked , whether the words discreetly warned does not imply or presume a discretion as to the quality of guilt or no guilt ? To the second , whether the whole sentence does not also imply or presuppose a discretion as to the SECT , or no sect ; British Freemasons being no sect , neither entertaining nor propagating any peculiar religious op inions ? Are they , therefore , " prohibited and condemned ?"
If any Divine will favour me with a solution of the above two attempted illustrations I shall feel greatly obliged , addressed to Mr . St . Alban Mason , care of Mr . Jones , bookseller , C 3 , Paternoster-row , London . * * ¦* . - - > :- * -: T That the decrees of the pontiffs were not provoked by the illegal opinions and anti-Christian dogmas propagated bBritish Freemasons
y no one can assert ; that they were not published specially to extirpate British Freemasonry , which repudiates the very opinions ancl doctrines condemned , may be safely affirmed without danger of trenching upon ecclesiastical ground . Have , then , our bishops , iii consequence of the political occurrences in Canada , impugned in the letter of the It . C . Archbishop of Tuam ancl the late combination of trades' unions in Englandand Ireland , condemned in their pastorals , felt it necessary to include in their
denunciations , —British Freemasons , Odd Fellows , Rechabites ( Temperance ) , Ancient Druids , Foresters , and other harmless , charitable , and convivial societies , feiv , if any , of which are now knoivn to be bound by oaths , with such like combinators and conspirators ? No clergyman will afford a more positive solution of this question than a reference to the Alia Observanda , by ivhich he is guided . The clergy , whose correspondence has appeared in the ' - ' Tablet , " exhibit most extraordinary and contradictory opinions , also upon the
term for the duration ancl force of the edicts . Some have written that there is no term ; some say forty years : some ten years ; ancl I have somewhere seen seven years affirmed . If the decrees of general councils upon discipline ancl morals are not all binding in every country , in some from want of promulgation , as the council of Trent in England , bulls , ancl the like from Rome , not being legal , even in countries where promulgated , —for instance the canon ivhich enjoins the forfeiture to the church of the field where a duellist has fallenwhich is not enforced in most
, countries , —may it not be equally so with Papal decrees , that they are not binding unless received by the respective bishops ? Yet this is ivhat T . J . B ., an " eminent ecclesiastic , " designates in his letter to the "Tablet" "Gallicanism . " Is it not then most reasonable to infer , in the absence of positive definition , that therefore the pastorals and letters of the bishops were intended to condemn only the political "secret societies , ' ' in Canada , and the trades combination lately prevalent here ,
unless it can be shown that the incidental mention of thenjame of Freemason be sufficient to prohibit the faithful from entering s ' ecret societies of any description , or that the bishops have therefore pronounced secrecy , secret signs , or secret oaths or affirmations for harmless purposes , to be contra bones mores . This I apprehend our bishops have never yet done . If so , Freemasonry is not coiiclu » nnecl ipso facto , as asserted bv the " Tablet . " VOL . in . ,,