,.^.. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) '^O (/. ^ iP 1.0 I.I ^ 1^ 1^ 1^ 1^ III 2.2 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 6" ► V] <^ /a A> '/ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 z CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques \ 6^ 4> Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Nota* tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D D a Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou peiliculie r^ Cover title missing/ La titra da couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiquas an couleur Coloured ink (i.Q. 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/ Relii avflic d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsqua cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas itA filmias. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplimentaires; L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaira qu'il lui a it* possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaira qui sont paut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvant modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages D Pages restaurias et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolories, tachaties ou piquies □Pages detached/ Pages ditachies QShowthrough/ Transparence Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ inAgala de ('impression Includes supplementary materit Comprend du materiel supplimantaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible r~~| Quality of print varies/ {~~1 Includes supplementary material/ nn Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiallement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., cnt 6t6 filmies A nouveau de facon i obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 9^ y m 10X 20X 24X 28X 32X Tho copy film«d h«ra hat b««n r«produc«d thanks to tho gonoroalty of: Douglas Library Quaan's University L'axamplaira fllmi fut raproduit grica it la g^ntroaiti da: Douglas Library Quaan's Uni varsity Tha imagaa appearing hara ara tha baat quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covera are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or iliuatratad imprea- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or Illustrated imprea- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images sukantes ont it* raproduites avac la plus grand soln, compta tenu de ia condition at de la nattet* de rexemplaire filmA, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat de fllmaga. Lea exemplairas originaux dont la couverture en papier eat imprimia sont fllmto en commenpant par la premier plat et en terminant soit par ia darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreesion ou d'illustration. soit par la second plat, aalon ie cas. Toua les autres exemplairas originaux sont fiimis en commenpant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'illustration et en terminant par la darnlAre 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 symboles suivants apparattra sur ia darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: la symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction 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 iliuatrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableeux, etc., peuvent Atre fiimte A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seui ciichi, 11 est filmA A partir de I'angia supirieur gauche, de gauche k droite, et de haut an bas, en prenant la nombre d'imagas nicessaire. Lea diagrammes suivants illustrent ia mithoda. 4' , ? ^ 1 2 3 4 ■f - --- — 5 1,^ 6 IVf^ ;' H*l V PUB] ^^^ £■; '■M^M VATICANISM: AN ANSWER TO REPROOFS AND REPLIES. BY Th£ RIGHT. HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M. P. AUTHOR OF THE VATICAN DECREES IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE." i :.L'l BELL & CO., PRINTERS, CITY STEAM PRESS, 1 3 ADELAIDE STREET EAST, TORONTO, ONT. ** i The the field the intei land anc tune. 1 this, tha a full mi that I St Knowinj ing dem abstract influence Tract, ai that the ferent vi the Lati phemoui probabi) Roman of Prela lists, has rep refer, do not division Besides largely have, foi Int Ultramc the Ron harsh w against which I says I h 'Appenc t For exs are conspic —BisMci tThe de- condemnat such decia u]30n conv( VATICANISM. ' •. ■ . J, I. Introduction. The number and quality of the antagonists ^ho have been drawn into the field on the occasion offered by my tract on the Vatican Decrees,* and the interest in the subject which has been manifested by the public of Eng- land and of many other countries, appear to show that it was not inoppor • tune. The only special claim to attention with which I could invest it was this, that for thirty years I had striven hard, together with others, to secure a full measure of civil justice for my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that I still retain the convictions by which these efforts had been prompted. Knowing well the general indisposition of the English mind, amid the press- ing demands of our crowded daily life, to touch any subject comparatively abstract and remote, I was not surprised when many journals of great influence, reflecting this indisposition, condemned the publication of the Tract, and inspired Roman authorities among us with the vain conception that the discussion was not practical or significant.t In Rome itself, a dif- ferent view was taken ; and the veiled prophets behind the throne, by whom the Latin Church is governed, brought about its condemnation as blas- phemous, without perusal, from the lips of the Holy Father.^ The object, probably, was at once to prevent or neutralize avowals of sympathy from Roman Catholic quarters. It may have been with a like aim that a number of Prelates at once entered, though by no means with one voice, into the lists. At length the great name of Dr. Newman was announced, and he too has replied to me, and explained himself, in a work to which I shall presently refer. Even apart from the spolia opima oli this transcendent champion, I do not undervalue the ability, accomplishments, and discipline of that division of the Roman Anny which confronts our Church and nation. Besides its supply from indigenous sources, it has been strangely but very largely recruited from the ranks of the English Church, and her breasts have, for thirty years, been pierced mainly by children whom they had fed. In these replies, of which the large majority adopt without reserve the Ultramontane hypothesis, it is most commonly alleged that I have insulted the Roman Catholics of these kingdoms. Dr. Newman, averse to the use of harsh words, still announces (p. 3) that "heavy charges have been made against the Catholics of England." Bishop Clifford, in a pastoral letter of which I gladly acknowledge the equitable, restrained, and Christian spirit, says I have proclaimed that since the Vatican Decrees were published " it is •Appendix A. \ For example : ' The various organs of the press, with the shrewd political sense for which they I are conspicuous, without any possible collusion, extinguished its political in.^ort in a single morning." I —Bishop Vaugtian's Pastoral Letter, p. 5. X The declaration of mok avenu, which, after a brief interval, followed the announcement of the Icondemnation, appeared upon some subsequent discussion to be negatived by the evidence. But jjsuch declarations .are, T conceive well understood in Rome to depend like an English * not at home.^ upon convenience. tion, appeared upon some .subsequent discussion to be negatived by the evidence, arations .are, T conceive well understood in Rome to depend like an English * not at h 185384 VATICANISM. no longer possible for English Catholics to pay to their temporal sovereign a full and undivided allegiance." I am obliged to assert that not one of the writers against me has appre- hended or stated with accuracy my principal charge. Except a prospective reference to " converts," the subject (to speak technically) of all my propo- sitions is the word " Rome ;" and with reference to these " converts," I speak of what they suffer, not of what they do. It is an entire, and even a gross error to treat all affirmations about Rome as equivalent to affirmations about British subjects of the Roman communion. They may adopt the acts of Rome : the question was and is, whether they do. I have done nothing to leave this question open to doubt ; for I have paraphrased my mono- syllable "Rome" by the words "the Papal chair, and its advisers and abettors" p. 9 ; Am. ed. p. 11). Unable as I am to attenuate the charges, on the contrary bound rather to plead guilty to the fault of having under- stated them, I am on that account the more anxious that their aim shall be clearly understood. First, then, I must again speak plainly, and I fear hardly, of that system, political rather than rehgious, which in Germany is well termed Vaticanism. It would be affectation to exclude from m^ lan- guage and meaning its contrivers and conscious promoters. But here in my mind, as well as in my page, any thing approaching to censure stops. The Vatican Decrees do, in the strictest sense, establish for the Pope a supreme command over loyalty and civil duty. To the vast majority of Roman Catholics they are, and in all likelihood will long in their carefully enveloped meaning remain, practically unknown. Of that small minority who have spoken or fitted themselves to speak, a portion reject them. Another portion receive them with an express reserve, to me perfectly satisfactory, agamst all their civil consec^uences. Another portion seem to suspend their judgment until it is determmed what is a free Council, what is moral unanimity, what are declarations ex cathedra, whether there has been a decisive and binding promulgation so as to create a law, and whether the claim for an undue obedience need be considered until some act of undue obedience is asked. A very large class, as it seems to me, think they receive these Decrees, and do not. They are involved in inconsistency, and that inconsistency is dan- gerous. So I presume they would tell me when I recite in the Creed the words, " I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," I am involved in inconsis- tency, and my inconsistency is dangerous. To treat this as a "heavy charge" is surely inaccurate ; to call it an insult is (forgive the word) preposterous. Not even against men who voted under pressure, against their better mind, for these deplorable Decrees — nay, not even against those who resisted them and now enforce them — is it for me to utter a word of censure. The just appreciation of their difficulties, the judgment of their conduct, lies in a region far too high for me. To assail the system is the Alpha and Omega of my desire ; and it is to me matter of regret that I am not able to handle it as it deserves without reflecting upon the persons, be they who they may, that have brought it into the world ; have seduluously fed it in its weakness ; have reared it up to its baleful maturity ; have forced it upon those who now force it upon others ; are obtaining for it from day to day fresh command over the pulpit, the press, the confessional, the teacher's chair, the bishop's throne ; so that every father of a family, and every teacher in the Latin com- munion, shall, as he dies, be replaced by some one more deepi/ imbued with the new collar, until at last, in that moiety of the whole Christian family, nothing shall remain except an Asian monarchy ; nothing but one giddy height of despotism, and one dead level of religious subserviency. But even of the most responsible abettors of that system I desire once for all to say that I do not presume in any way to impeach their sincerity ; and that, as far as I am acquainted with their personal characters, I should think it great presumption to place myself in comparison or competition with any of them. So mu( pacity in It crossec weight wl the perso they are ' such pro( I have en eration, ; argument complaint nor do I fully ascei of their c language, and to qu With! its branch my Expos the allega positions, even to ei In cor been elicit to whom a mean Dr. Of thi: opinion, hi mated am tance. It neither, I and by th( Ecclesiast I. much gre .^i Wesley, t Reformati refer to its that is an I belief and this, thirt) I none but It has first to gi\ ful impuls then to b( markable, conflicting My d\ But in do * Forexan. -Hon Unrave AugMtiHe,% ''^and, apparen |iiii my tract iovereign a has appre- )rospective my propo- )nverts," I and even a ffirmations pt the acts ne nothing my mono- visers and le charges, v'mg under- ' im shall be and I fear Germany is m my lan- here in my itops. The a supreme of Roman Y enveloped y who have :her portion , agamst all X judgment limity, what ind binding r an undue :e is asked. )ecrees, and ;ncy is dan- ; Creed the in inconsis- lavy charge" )osterous. their better ivho resisted nsure. The icl, lies in a and Omega ie to handle o they may, s weakness ; 3se who now h command the bishop's ; Latin com- imbued with jtian family, t one giddy e once for all and that, as hink it great any of them. • INTRODUCTION. J So much for insult. Much has also been said of my ignorance and inca- |)acity in theology ;* a province which I had entered only at the points where It crossed the border of the civil domain. Censures of this kind have great weight when they follow upon demonstration given of errors committed by the person who is the object of them ; but they can have very little when thev are used as substitutes for such a demonstration. In the absence of such proof, they can rank no higher than as a mere artifice of controversy. I have endeavoured to couch all my positive statements in language of mod- eration, and not one among them that appertains to the main line of argument has been shaken. As to the use of rhetoric, another matter of complaint, I certainly neither complain of strong language used against me, nor do I think that can properly be avoided, when the matters of fact, care- fully ascertained and stated, are such that it assists towards a comprehension of their character and consequences. At the same time, in the use of such language, earnestness should not be allowed to degenerate into dogmatism, and to qualify is far more pleasant than to employ it. With so much of preface, I proceed to execute my twofold duty. One of its branches is to state in what degree I conceive the immediate purpose of my Expostulation to have been served ; and the other to examine whether the allegations of antagonists have dislodged my arguments from their main positions, or, on the contrary, have confirmed them ; and to re-state — nay, even to enlarge — those positions accordingly. In considering the nature of the declarations on civil duty which have been elicited, it will not be thought unnatural if I begin with the words of one to whom age and fame combine in assigning the most conspicuous place — I mean Dr. Newman. Of this most remarkable man I must pause to speak a word. In my opinion, his secession from the Church of England has never yet been esti- mated among us at any thing like the full amount of its calamitous impor- tance. It has been said that the world does not know its greatest men ; neither, I will add, is it aware of the power and weight carried by the words and by the acts of those among its greatest men whom it does know. The Ecclesiastical historian will perhaps hereafter judge that this secession was a much greater event than the gfreat event of the partial secession of Johi Wesley, the only case of loss suffered by the Church of England, since the Reformation, which can be at all compared with it in magnitude. I do not refer to its effect upoh the mere balance of schools or parties in the Church ; that is an inferior question. I refer to its effect upon the state of positive belief and the attitude and capacities of the religious mind of England. Of this, thirty years ago, he had the leadership : an office and power from which none but himself could eject him. " Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus Tarn cari capitis?* It has been his extraordinary, perhaps unexampled case, at a critical period, first to give to the religious thought of his time and country the most power- ful impulse which for a long time it had received from any individual ; and then to be the main involuntary cause of disorganizing it in a manner as re- markable, and breaking up its forces into a multitude of not only severed but conflicting bands. My duty calls me to deal freely with his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk But in doing so, I can never lose the recollection of the perhaps ill-appreciated For example Bishop Ullathorne, Letter, p. jo. Exposi- by Archbishop Manning, pp. 13, 177. Hon Unraveled, p. 68. Bishop Vaughan, p. 37. Month, December, 1874, p. 497. Monk 0/ St. Aueuttine, p. 10. With these legitimate reproaches is oddly combined, on the part oJ the Archbishop, id, apparently, of Bishop Ullathorne, a supposition tbat Dr. Dttllinger was in some manner concerned m my tract on the Vatican Decrees. See Appendix B. VATICANISM. greatness of his early life and works. I do not presume to intrude into the sanctuary of his present thoughts ; but by reason of that life and those works, it seems to me that there is something we must look upon with the affection with which Americans regard those Englishmen who strove and wrought be- fore the colonization or severance of their country. Nay, it may not be pre- sumptuous to say we have a possessory right in the better half of him. All he produces is and must be most notable. But has he outrun, has he over- taken the greatness of the "History of the Arians" and of the " Parochial Sermons," those indestructible classics of English theology ? And again, I thankfully record the admissions which such integrity, com- bined with such acuteness, has not been able to withhold. They are of the greatest importance to the vindication of my argument. In my reading of his work, we have his authority for the following statements : That Romsn Catholics are bound to be " as loyal as other subjects of the State ;" and tlf^t Rome is not to give to the civil power " trouble or alarm" (p. 7). That the assurances given by the Roman Catholic Bishops in 1825-20 have not been strictly fulfilled (pp. 12-14). That Roman Catholics can not wonder that statesmen should feel themselves aggrieved (p. 1 7). That Popes are some- times in the wrong, and sometimes to be resisted, even in matters affecting the government and welfare of the Church (pp. 33, 34). That the Deposing power is defensible only upon condition of " the common consent of peoples (p. 37). That if England supported Italy against any violent attempt to restore the Pope to his throne, Roman Catholics could offer no opposition but such as the constitution of the country allows (p. 49). That a soldier or a sailor employed in a war which (in his private judgment, be it observed) he did not think unjust, ought not to retire from the prosecution of that war on the command of the Pope (p. 52). That conscience is the aboriginal vicar of Christ (p. 57) : eitt tuchtiges IVort! and Dr. Newman, at an ideal public dinner, will drink to conscience first, and the Pope afterwards (p. 66). That one of the great dangers of the Roman Catholic Church is to be found in the exaggerated language and proceedings allowed among its own members (pp. 4, 80, 94, 125), and that there is much malaria in the Court of Rome. That a definition by a general Council, which the Pope ap- proves, is not absolutely binding thereby, but requires a moral unanimity, and a subsequent reception by the Church (pp. 96, 98). That antecedently to the theological definitions of 1854 and 1870, an opponent might have " fairly said" " it might appear that there were no sufificient historical grounds in behalf of either of them ;" and that the confutation of such an opponent is now to be sought only in "the fact of the definition being made" (p. 107). I shall indulge in none of the taunts, which Dr. Newman anticipates, on the want of correspondence between him and other Apologists ; and I shall leave it to theologians to examine the bearing of these admissions on the scheme of Vaticanism, and on other parts of his own work. It is enough for me to record that even if they stood alone, they would suffice to justify the publica- tion which has given " occasion" for them ; and that on the point of Dr. Newman's practical reservation of his command over his own "loyalty and civil duty," they are entirely satisfactory. As regards this latter point, the Pastoral of Bishop Clifford is also everything that can be wished. Among laymen who declare they accept the Decrees of 1870, I must make the same avowal as to my esteemed friend Mr. De Lisle ; and again, as to Mr. Stores Smith, who regards me with " silent and intense contempt," but who does not scruple to write as follows : " If this country decide to go to war, for any cause whatsoever, I will hold my own opinion as to the justice or policy of that war, but I will do all that in me lies to bring victory to the British standard. If there be any Parlia- mentary or Municipal election, and any Priest or Bishop, backed by Arch- bishop and the Pope, advise me to take a certain line of action, and I conceive ude into the those works, the affection [ wrought be- y not be pre- of him. All has he over- ; " Parochial itegrity, com- ey are of the ly reading of that Roman te ;" and tlftit ). That the ive not been wonder that is are some- ters affecting Lhe Deposing u of peoples" It attempt to lo opposition t a soldier or ! it observed) osecution of cience is the , Newman, at pe afterwards Church is to d among its i/ana in the the Pope ap- al unanimity, antecedently might have rical grounds 1 opponent is ide" (p. 107). ipates, on the , I shall leave 1 the scheme igh for me to { the publica- point of Dr. " loyalty and :ter point, the lied. Among ake the same to Mr. Stores who does not sr, I will hold ill do all that »e any Parlia- ked by Arch- nd I conceive INTRODUCTION, f that the opposite course is necessary for the general weal of my fellow coun- trymen, I shall take the opposite."* Wtven it is considered tnat Dr. Newman is like the sun in the intellectual hemisphere of Anglo- Romanism, and that, besides those acceptors of the Decrees who write in the same sense, various Roman Catholics of weight and distinction, 'veil known to represent the views of many more, have held equally outspoken and perhaps more consistent language, I can not but say that the immediate purpose of my appeal has been attained, in so far that the loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the mass is evidently untainted and secure. It would be unjust to Archbishop Manning, on whose opinions, in many points, I shall again have to animadvert were I not to say tnat his declara- tionst also materially assist in leading me to this conclusion : an avowal I am the more bound to make, because I think the premises from which he draws them are such as, if I were myself to accept them, would certainly much im- pair the guarantees for my performing, under all circumstances, the duties of a good subject. This means that the poison which circulates from Rome has been taken into the system. Unhappily, what I may term the minority among the Apologists do not represent the ecclesia docensj the silent diffusion of it£ influence in the lay atmosphere ; the true current and aim of thought in the Papal Church ; now given up to Vaticanism dejure, and likely, according to all human probability, to come from year to year more under its power. And here again the ulterior purpose of my Tract has been thus far attained. It was this : To provide that if, together with the ancient and loyal traditions of the body, we have now imported among us a scheme adverse to the prin- ciples of human freedom and in its essence unfaithful to civil duty, the char- acter of that scheme should be fully considered and understood. It is high time that the chasm should be made visible, severing it, and all who know- ingly and thoroughly embrace it, from the principles which we had a right to believe not only prevailed among the Roman Catholics of these countries^ but were allowed and recognized by the authorities of their Church ; and would continue, therefore, to form the basis of their system, permanent and undis- trrbed. For the more complete attainment of this object, I must now pro- ceed to gather together the many threads of the controversy, as it has been left by my numerous opponents. This I shall do, not from any mere call of speculation or logical consistency, but for strong practical reasons. Dr. Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk is of the highest interest as a psychological study. Whatever he writes, whether we agree with him or not, presents to us this great attraction as well as advantage, that we have every where the man in the work, that his words are the transparent cover- ing of his nature. If there be obliquity in them, it is purely intellectual obli- qiuty ; the work of an intellect sharp enough to cut the diamond and be bright as the dia.nond whicn it cuts. How rarely it is found, in the wayward and inscrutable records of our race, that with these instruments of an almost su- perhuman force and subtlety, robustness of character and energy of will are or can be developed in the same extraordinary proportions, so as to integrate that structure of combined thought and action which makes life a moral whole. " There are gifts too large and too fearful to be handled freely ."J But I turn from an incidental reflection to observe that my duty is to appre- ciate the letter of Dr. Newman exclusively in relation to my Tract. I thank- fully here record in the first place, the kindliness of his tone. If he has striven to minimize the Decrees of the Vatican, I am certain he has also '' Letter in Halifax Couritr of December 5, 1874. t Archbishop Manning, Vatican Decrees, pp. 136-40. t Dr. Newman, p. 127. t VATICANISM. • Striven to minimize his censures and has put words aside before they touched his paper, which must have been in his thoughts, if not upon his pen. I sum up (his pleasant portion of my duty with the language of Helen respecting Hector, irdrrfp m, ^u)« arct.* It is, in my opinion, an entire mistake to suppose that theories like those, of which Rome is the centre, are not operative on the thoughts and actions of men. An army of teachers, the largest and the most compact in the world, is ever sedulously at work to bring them into practice. Within our own time they have most powerfully, as well as most injuriouslv, altered the spirit and feeling of the Roman Church at large ; and it will be strange, indeed, if, having doneso much in the last half-century, they shall effect nothing in the next. I must avow, then, that I do not feel exactly the same security for the future as for the present. Still less do I feel the same security for other lands as for this. Nor can I overlook indications which lead to the belief that, even in this country, and at this time, the proceedings of Vati- canism threaten to be a source of some practical inconvenience. I am confident that if a system so radically bad is to be made or kept innocuous, the first condition for attaining such a result is that its movements should be carefully watched, and, above all, that the bases on which they work should be faithfully and unflinchingly exposed. Nor can I quit this portion of the subject without these remarks. The satisfactory views of Archbishop Manning on the present rule of civil allegiance have not prevented him from giving his countenance as a responsible editor to the lucubrations of a gen- tleman who denies liberty of conscience, and asserts the right to persecute when there is the power ; a right which, indeed, he has not himself dis- claimed. Nor must it be forgotten that the very best of all the declarations we have heard from those who allow themselves to be entangled in the meshes of the Vatican Decrees are, every one of them, uttered subject to the condi- tion that, upon orders from Rome, if such orders should issue, they shall be qualified or retracted or reversed. " A breath can wMmake them, as a breath has made." But even apart from all this, do what we may in checking external developments, it is not in our power to neutralize the mischiefs of the wanton aggression of 1870 upon the liberties — too scanty, it is excusable to think — which up to that epoch had been allowed to private Christians in the Roman communion. Even in those parts of Christendom where the Decrees and the present attitude of the Papal See do not produce or aggra- vate open broils with the civil power, by undermining moral liberty they impair moral responsibility, and silently, in the succession of generations if not even in the lifetime of individuals, tend to emasculate the vigor of the mind. In the tract on the Vatican Decrees I passed briefly by those portions of my original statement which most lay within the province of theology, and dwelt principally on two main propositions. I. That Rome had reproduced for active service those doctrines of former times, termed by me '* rusty tools," which she was fondly thought to have disused. II. That the Pope now claims, with plenary authority, from every convert member of his Church, that he " shall place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another," that other being himself. These are the assertions which I now hold myself bound further to sus- tain and prove. statement 'Iliad, xxiv. 775. M er to sus- II. The Rusty Tools. The Syllabus. 1. Its CoHttnts. 2. Its Authority, With regard to the proposition that Rome has refurbished her " rusty " tools, Dr. Newman says it was by these tools that Europe was brought into a civilized condition ; and, thinks it worth while to ask whether it is my wish that penalties so sharp and expressions so high should be of daily use.**^ I may be allowed to say, in reply to the remark I have cited, that I have nowhere presumed to pronounce a general censure on the conduct of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. That is a vast question, reaching far beyond my knowledge or capacity. I believe much is to be justly said in praise, much as justly in blame. But I can not view the statement that Papal claims and conduct created the civilization of Europe as other than thoroughly unhistorical and one-sided ; as resting upon a narrow selection of evidence, upon strong exaggeration of what that evidence imports, and upon an " invmcible ignorance " as to all the rest. Many things may have been suited, or not unsuited, to rude times and indeterminate ideas of political right, the reproduction of which is at the least strange, perhaps even monstrous. We look back with interest and respect upon our early fire-arms as they rest peacefully ranged upon the wall ; but we can not think highly of the judgment which would recommend their use in modern warfare. As for those weapons which had been con- signed to obscurity and rust, my answer to Dr. Newman's question is that they should have slept forever, till perchance some reclaiming plough of the future should disturb them. ". . . quiim finibiis illis Axncola incurvo terram molitus aratro, Exeta invcniet scabra rubigina pila." t As to proof of my accusation, it appeared to me that it might be suffi- ,. ciently given in a summary but true account! of some important portions of I the Encyclica of December 8, 1864, and especially of the accompanying I Syllabus of the same date. I The replies to the five or six pages in which I dealt with this subject J have so swollen as to reach fifteen or twenty times the bulk. I am sorry I that they involve me in the necessity of entering upon a few pages of detail I which may be wearisome. But I am bound to vindicate my good faith and j care, where a failure in either involves results of importance. These results I fall under the "'o following heads : (i.^ The S^ .abus ; what is its language ? (2.) The Syllabus ; what is its authority .'' As to the language, I have justly represented it : as to its authority, my I statement is not above, but beneath the mark. I. The Contents of the Syllabus. My representation of the language of the Syllabus has been assailed in I strong terms. I proceed to defend it : observing, however, that my legiti- mate object was to state in popular terms the effect of propositions more or [less technical and scholastic ; and, secondly, that I did not present each and * Dr. Newman, p. 3a. ' t Virgil, Gtoriict, i. 493. X Erroneously called by some of my antagonists a translation, and then condemned as a ba4 translation. But I know of no rtei^ for translating into less than half the bulk of the original. lO VATICANISM. every proposition for a separate disapproval, but directed attention rather to the effect of the document as a whole, in a qualifying passage (p. 13 ; Am. ed. p. 14) which no one of my critics has been at the pains to notice. Nos. 1-3. — The first charge of unjust representation is this* : I have stated that the Pope condemns (p. 25 ; Am. ed. p. 21) liberty of the press and liberty of speech. By reference to the original, it is shown that the right of printing and speaking is not in terms condemned universally ; but only the right of each man to print or speak all his thoughts (suos conceptus quoscunqne), whatever they may be. Hereupon it is justly observed that in all countries there are laws against blasphemy, or obscenity, or sedition, or all three. It is argued, then, that men are not allowed the right to speak or print all their thoughts, and that such an extreme right is only what the Pope has condemned. It appears to me that this is, to use a mild phrase, mere trifling with the subject. We are asked to believe that what the Pope intended to condemn was a state of things which never has existed in any country of the world. Now he says he is condemning one of the commonly prevailing errors of the time, familiarly known to the bishops whom he addresses.t What bishop knows of a State which by law allows a perfectly free course of blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition ? The world knows quite well what is meant by free speech and a free press. It does mean, generally, perhaps it may be said universally, the right of declaring all opinions whatsoever. The limit of freedom is not the justness of the opinion, but it is this, that it shall be opinion in good faith, and not mere grossness, passion, or appeal to violence. The law of England at this moment, allowing all opinions whatever, pro- vided they are treated by v/ay of rational discourse, most closely corresponds to what the Pope has condemned. His condemnation is illustrated by his own practice as Governor in the Roman States, m here no opinion could be spoken or printed but such as he approved. Once, indeed, he permitted a free discussion on Saint Peter's presence and prelacy in* the city ; but he repented quickly, and forbade the repetition of it. We might even cite his practice as Pope in 1870, where everything was done to keep the proceedings of the Council secret from the Church which it professed to represent, and even practically secret from its members, except those who weie of the govern- ing cabal. But there can be no better mode of exhibiting his real meaning than by referring to his account of the Austrian law. Hac lege omnis omnium opinionum ct libraries artis libertas, omnis turn fidei, turn conscientioe ac doc- trince, libertas statuiturX To the kind of condemnation given, I shall again refer ; but the matter of it is nothing abstract or imaginary, it is actual free- dom of thinking, speaking, and printing, as it is practiced in a great civilized and Christian empire. I repel, then, the charge against me as no better than a verbal subterfuge ; and 1 again affirm that in his Syllabus, as in' his acts, the Pope has condemned liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. No. 5. — I have stated that the Pope condemns " those who assign to the State the power of defining the civil rights {jura) and province of the Church." Hereupon it is boldly stated that " the word civil is a pure interpolation."§ This statement Dr. Newman's undertaking tempts him to quote, but his sagacity and scholarship save him from adopting. Anticipating some cavil such as this, I took care (which is not noticed) to place the word jura in my text. I now affirm that my translation is correct, yus means, not right at * Th* Month, December, 1874, p. 494. Coleridge, Abomination of Desolation ^ p. 20. Bishop Ullathome, Pastoral Letter, p. 16. Monk of St. Augustine's, p. 15. Dr. Newman, pp. 59, 72, in some part. t ' Probe noscitis hoc tempore iion paucos reperiri, qui,' etc. — Encycl, December 8, 1864. t From the Pope's Allocution of June 22, 1868 : " By this law is established universal liberty of all pinions and of the press, and, as of belief, so of conscience and of teaching." See Vering, Archiv fur Katholisches Kirchenrecht. .Mainz, 1868, p. 171, Band xx. %Tht Abomination of Desolation, p. 21. Dr. Newman, p. 87. THE RUSTY TOOLS.— THE SYLLABUS. II ion rather to (p. 13; Am. 3tice. lis* : I have of the press wn that the ^ersally ; but los conceptus jrved that in sedition, or : to speak or inly what the ing with the to condemn i world. Now errors of the tVhat bishop f blasphemy, leant by free may be said The limit of all be opinion lence. rhatever, pro- j corresponds trated by his ion could be permitted a city ; but he even cite his e proceedings epresent, and of the govern- real meaning mnis omnium ientice ac doc- , I shall again is actual free- great civilized 10 better than s in- his acts, ress. assign to the ■ the Church." terpolation."§ uote, but his ig some cavil d Jura in my , not right at t, p. 20. Bishop man, pp. 59, 73, in r 8, 1864. rersal liberty of all i Vering, Archiv large, but a specific form of right, and in this case civil right, to which meaning indeed the word constantly leans. It refers to right which is social, relative, extrinsic. Jus hominum situm est in veneris humani societate (Cic. Tusc. 2-26). If a theological definition is desired, take that of Dens : Accipitur potissimum pro jure prottt est in altero, cut debet satisfieri ad (equalitatem J de jure sic sumpto hie agitur* It is not of the internal constitution of the Church and the rights of its members inter se that the proposition treats, not yet of its ecclesiastical standing in reference to other bodies ; but of its rights in the face of the State — that is to say, of its civil rights. My account therefore was accurate, and Mr. Coleridge's criticism superfluous. I must, however, admit that Vaticanism has a way of escape. For per- haps it does not admit that the Church enjoys any civil rights ; but considers as her own, and therefore spiritual in their source, such rights as we consider accidental and derivative, even where not abusive. On this subject I will refer to a high authority. The Jesuit Schrader was, I believe, one of those employed in drawing up the Syllabus. He has pub- lished a work, with a Papal Approbation attached to it, in which he converts the condemnatory negations of the Syllabus into the corresponding affirma- tives. For Article XXX. he gives the following proposition : " The immunities of the Church, and of ecclesiastical persons, have not their origin in civil rights." He adds the remark : " but are rooted in the Church's own right, given to her from God."t No. 7. — I have said those persons are condemned by the Syllabus who hold that in countries called Catholic the free exercise of other religions may laudably be allowed. Dr. Newman truly observes^! that it is the free exercise of religion by immigrants or foreigners which is meant (hominibus illuc immigrantibus), and that I have omitted the words. I omitted them, for my case was strong enough without them. But they seem to strengthen my case. For the claim to a free exercise of religion on behalf of immigrants or foreigners is a stronger one than on behalf of natives, and has been so recog- nized in Italy and in Rome itself. I think I am right in saying that difference of tongue has generally been recognized by Church law as mitigating the objections to the toleration of dissidence. And it is this stronger claim, not the weaker one, which is condemned. So that if there be a fault, it is the fault of under, not of over statement. Again I support myself by the high authority of Schrader the Jesuit. The following is his Article LXXVII. It draws no distinction of countries : "In our view it is still useful that the Catholic religion should be main- tained as the only State religion, to the exclusion of every other."§ In the appended remark he observes that on this account the Pope, in 1856, condemned the then recent Spanish law which tolerated other forms of worship.li No. 8. — ^I am charged, again,ir with mistranslating under my eighth head. The condemnation in the Syllabus is, as I conceived, capable of being con- strued to apply to the entire proposition as it is there given, or to a part of it only. In brief it is this : " The Episcopate has a certain power not inherent, but conferred by the State, which may therefore be withdrawn at the pleasure of the State." The condemnation might be aimed at the assertion that such a power exists, or at the assertion that it is withdrawable at pleasure. In the latter sense, the condemnation is unwise and questionable as a general pro- position ; in the former sense it is outrageous beyond all bounds ; and I am * Tractatns de jure tt jmittia. No. 6, t Der Paptt und die Modemeii Ideen. Von P. Clemens Schrader, S. J. Heft ii. p. 65. X Dr. Newman, p. 86. S Schrader, p. 80. || Inf. •[ Mr. Coleridge, Abominations p/ Desolation, p. 31. 12 VATICANISM. boldly accused of mistranslating* because I chose the milder imputation of the two, and understood the censure to apply only to withdrawal ad libitum. I learn now that, in the opinion of this antagonist at least, the State was not the source of (for example) the power of coinage, which was at ohe time exercised by the Bishops of Durham. So that the upshot is, either my con- struction is right, or my charge is milder than it should have been. Nos. 13, 14. — A grave charge is made against me respecting the matri- monial propositions, because I have cited the Pope as condemning those who affirm that the matrimonial contract is binding whether there is or is not (according to the Roman doctrine) a Sacrament, and have not at the same time stated that English marriages are held by Rome to be sacramental, and therefore valid.t No charge, serious or slight, could be more entirely futile. But it is serious, and not slight, and those who prompt the examination must abide the recoil. I begin thus : 1. I am censured for not having given distinctions between one country and another, which the Pope himself has not given. 2. And which are also thought unnecessary by authorized expounders or the Syllabus for the faithful.J I have before me the Exposition,§ with the text, of the Encyclica and Syllabus, published at Cologne in 1874 with the approval of authority {mit aberkirchlicher Approbation). In p. 45 it is disitiactly taught that with mar- riage the State has nothing to do ; that it may safely rely upon the Church ; that civil marriage, in the eyes of the Church, is only concubinage ; and that the State, by the use of worldly compulsion, [invents the two concubinary parties from repenting and abandoning their guilty relation to one another. Exactly the same is the doctrine of the Pope himself, in his speeches pub- lished at Rome, where civil marriage is declared to be, for Christians, nothing more than a mere concubinage, and a filthy concubinage {sozzo concubinato .)\\ These extraordinary declarations are not due to the fondness of the Pontiff for speaking impromptu. In his letter of September 19, 1852, to King Victor Emmanuel, he declares that matrimony carrying the Sacrament is alone lawful for Christians, and that a law of civil marriage, which goes to divide them, for practical purposes, constitutes a concubinage in the guise of legit- imate marriage.ir So that, in truth, in all countries within the scope of these denunciations, the parties to a civil marriage are declared to be living in an illicit connection, which they are called upon to renounce. This call is addressed to them separately as well as jointly, the wife being summoned to leave her husband, and the husband to abandon his wife ; and after this pre- tended repentance from a state of sin, unless the law of the land and fear of consequences prevail, a new connection, under the name of a marriage, may be formed with the sanction of the Church of Rome. I know not by what infatuation it is that adversaries have compelled me thus to develop a state of facts created by the highest authorities of the Roman Church, which j shall now not shrink from calling horrible and revolting in itself, dangerous to the morals of society, the structure of the family, and the peace of life. It is true, indeed, that the two hundred thousand non-Roman marriages which are annually celebrated in England do not at present fall under the foul epithets of Rome. But why ? Not because we marry, as I believe nineteen-twentieths of us marry, under the sanctions of religion ; for our marriages are> in the eye of the Pope, purely civil marriages ; but only for * Mr. Coleridge, AbomtnatioHS of Desolation, p ai. \ Monk ojf Sattit Augustine's, p. 15. Alwminatioft, p. 22. {Appendix C. iDie Encyilica^der Syllabus, und die ivichtigsten darin ange/uhrten Acienstitcke, nebst einer mus/uhrlichtH Einleitung. Koln, 1874. II Ditcorsidi Pio IX. Roma, 1872, 1873. Vol. i. p. 193 ; vol. ii. p. 355. ^ Recueil des Alloeutions de Pie IX, etc. Paris : Leclarc, 1865, p. 313. X^-W***'' »rf«fM*-^!fWfi»^- THE RUSTY TOOLS.— THE SYLLABUS. 13 one country ckCf ntbtt titter the technical, accidental, and precarious reason that the disciplinary decrees of Trent are not canonically in force in this country. I apprehend that there is nothing, unless it be motives of mere policy, to prevent the Pope from putting them into force here when he pleases. If, and when that is done^ every marriage thereafter concluded in the English Church will, according to his own words, be a filthy concubinage. But what claim of right have we to be treated better than others ? The Tridentine decrees have force, I understand, in Italy, France, Germany,^ Austria, Poland, Hungary. If so, every civil marriage in those countries, and every religious marriage not contracted before a Roman Parochus, as theiCouncil of Trent requires, is but the formation of a guilty connection, which each of the parties severally is charged by the Church of Rome to dissolve, under pain of being held to be in mortal sin. I believe this statement can not be impeached. It can only be even qualified by pointing out that Rome has reserved to herself, if and when she pleases, the application of the rule of the Council of Trent, absurdly called Clandestinity, to non- Roman marriages in Tridentine countries. Benedict XIV., a great authority, questioned the propriety or policy of the rule ; and Pius VII,, in a communication to the Primate Dalberg, formerly Archbishop of Mentz, referred with approval to the language of Benedict XIV. But even they have never taken that course which appears to be the rational one, namely, to allow to non-Roman marriages generally, if contracted solemnly and with due precaution, that same consensual validity which all allow to belong to marriages outside the Christian pale. The upshot, then, of their opinions seems to be this : that while stigmatizing marriages not Tridentine as concubinages in the manner we have seen, a power is reserved, under the name or plea of special circumstances, to acknowledge them or not as policy may recommend. This is but the old story. All problems which menace the Roman Chair with difficulties it dare not face are to be solved, not by the laying down of principles, good or bad, strict or lax, in an intelligible manner, but by reserving all cases as matters of discretion to the breast of the Curia, which will decide from time to time, according to its pleasure, whether there has been a sacrament or not, and whether we are married folks, or persons living in guilty commerce, and rearing our children under a false pretext of legitimacy. This, then, is the statement I now make. Is has been drawn from me by the exuberant zeal and precititate accusations of the school of Loyola. No. 18. — Finally, it is contended that I misrepresent Rome in stating that it condemns the call to reconcile itself with progress, liberalism, and modem civilization. It is boldly stated that the Pope condemns not these, but only what is bad in these.* And thus it is that, to avert public displeasure, words are put in the Pope's mouth which he has not used, and which are at variance with the whole spirit of the document that he has sent forth to alarm, as Dr. Newman too well sees, the educated mind of Europe.t It appears to be claimed for Popes that they shall be supreme over the laws of language. But mankind protests against a system which palters in a double sense with its owk solemn declarations ; imposing them on the weak, glorying in them before those who are favourably prepossessed, and then contracting their sense ad libitum, even to the point of nullity, by arbitrary interpolation, to appease the scandalized understanding of Christian nations. Without doubt, progress, liberalism, modern civilization, are terms more or less ambiguous ; but they are, under a sound general rule, determinable by the context. Now the contexts of the Syllabus and Encyclica are perfectly unambiguous : they * Month as ntp. p. 496. Bishop Ullathorne, Expoitnlation Unraveled, p. 69. t Dr. Newman, p. 90. 14 VATICANISM. perfectly explain what the Pope means by the words. He means to condemn all that we consider fair limitation of the claims of priestly power ; to repudiate the title of man to general freedom of thought, and of speech in all its varied forms of utterance ; the title of a nation to resist those who treat the sovereignty over it as a property, and who, would enforce on the people — for example, of the Papal States — a government independently of or against its will ; in a word, the true and only sure titles of freedom in all its branches, inward and outward, mental, moral, and political, as they are ordinarily understood, in the judgment of this age and country. I have gone, I believe, through every particular impeachment of my account of the language of the Syllabus and the Encyclica. If each and all of these have failed, I presume that I need not dwell upon the general allega- tions of opponents in respect to those heads where they have not been pleased to enter upon details.* Now it is quite idle to escape the force of these charges, by reproaches aimed at my unacquaintance with theology, and by recommendations, sar- castic or sincere, that I should obtain some instruction in its elements. To such reproaches I shall peacefully and respectfully bow, so soon as I shall have been convicted of error. But I think I have shown that the only varia- tions from exact truth to which I can plead guilty are variations in the way of understatements of the case which it was my duty to produce. ■ 2. The Atithority cf the Syllabus. -y^^'^ ^-'h, I have next to inquire what is the authority of the Syllabus ? Had I been inclined to push my case to extremes, I might veiy well have contended that this document was delivered ex cathedra. Schulte, whose authority as a Canonist is allowed on all hands to be great, founds his argu- ment on that opinion.t Dr. Ward, who has been thanked^ by His Holiness for his defense of the faith, wonders that any one can doubt it.§ The Pope himself, in his speeches, couples the Syllabus with the Decrees of the Vati- can Council, as being jointly the great fundamental teachings of these latter days ; and he even describes it as the only anchor of safety for the coming time.ll Bishop Fessler, whose work was published some time after the Council, to tone down alarms, and has had a formal approval from the Pope,!" holds that the Syllabus is not a document proceeding ex cathedra. But it touches faith and morals : its condemnations are, and are allowed to be, assertions of their contradictories, into which assertions they have been for- mally converted by Schrader, a writer of authority, who was officially employed in its compilation. Furthermore, though I was wrong, (as Dr. Newman has properly observed**) in assuming that the Encyclica directly covered all the propositions of the Syllabus, yet this document is addressed by the Pope through Cardinal Antonelli to all the Bishops of the Christian (Papal) world — therefore in his capacity as universal Teacher. The reasons advanced by Bishop Fessler in the opposite sense appear to be very weak. When the Pope (by conversion of the 23d Proposition) de- clares that preceding pontiffs have not exceeded the limits of their power, and have not usurped the rights of princes. Bishop Fessler replies that we are here dealing only with facts of history, not touching faith or morals, so that there is no subject-matter for a dogmatic definition .tt But the deposi- * The Month, as sup. p. 497. + Power of the Roman Popes (transl. by Sommers. Adelaide, 1871). X DtiiliH Revittv, July, 1870, p. 224. S Ibid. July, 1874, p. 9. (1 Discord di Pio IX., vol. i. p. 59. •j Fessler, Trut and False Infallibility (English transl.), p. iii. ** Newman, p. 82. tt Fessler, Vraie etfausse I nfallibiliie des Papes (French transl.), p. 89. THE RUSTY TOOLS.— THE SYLLABUS. »5 i to condemn r power ; to ipeech in all e who treat 1 the people lently of or 3m in all its as they are nent of my each and all neral allega- ire not been reproaches dations, sar- ;ments. To 1 as I shall ; only varia- s in the way ry well have lulte, whose Is his argu- lis Holiness The Pope of the Vati- these latter the coming le after the 1 the Pope,ir dra. But it >wed to be, iQ been for- ofificially jng, (as Dr. ica directly is addressed le Christian e appear to osition) de- ;heir power, ies that we morals, so : the deposi- tions of sovereigns were wont to be founded on considerations of faith or morals ; as when Gregorv VII., in A.D. 1079, charged upon Henry IV. many capital crimes,''^ and as when Innocent III. deposed Raymond of Toulouse for (among other reasons) not proceeding satisfactorily with the extirpation of the Albigenses.t The Christian creed itself is chiefly com- posed of matters of fact set forth as articles of belief. And he who asserts that the acts of Popes did not go beyond their rights, distinctly expresses his belief in the claims of right which those acts involved. Fessler's other objection is that the form of the Syllabus does not set forth the intention of the Pope.t But he appears to have overlooked the perfectly explicit covering letter of Antonelli, which in the Pope's name transmits the Syllabus, in order that the whole body of Latin Bishops might have before their eyes, those errors and false doctrines of the age which the Pope had proscribed. Nor does Fessler venture to assert that the Syllabus is without dogmatic authority. He only says many theologians have doubts upon the question whether it be ex cathedra : theological science will hereafter have to examine and decide the matter :§ in the meantime every Roman Catholic is bound to submit to and obey it. Such is the low or moderate doctrine concerning the Syllabus.|| Thus its dogmatic authority is probable : its title to universal obedience is absolute, while among its assertions is that the Church has the right to employ force, and that the Popes have not exceeded their powers or invaded the rights of princes. Now, when I turn to the seductive pages of Dr. Newman, 1 find myself to be breathing another air, and discussing, it would seem, some other Sylla- bus. If the Pope were the author of it, he would accept it.1F But he is not,** and no one knows who js. Therefore it has no dogmatic force. tt It is an index to a set of dogmatic Bulls and Allocutions, but it is no more dogmatic itself than any other index or table of contents.tJ Its value lies in its refer- ences, and from them alone can we learn its meaning. If we had Dr. Newman for Pope, we should be tolerably safe, so merciful and genial would be his rule. But when Dr. Newman, not being Pope, con- tradicts and nullifies what the Pope declares, whatever we may wish, we can not renounce the use of our eyes. Fessler, who writes, as Dr. Newman truly says, to cur bexaggerations,§§ and who is approved by the Pope, declares || || that every subject of the Pope, and thus that Dr. Newman, is bound to obey the Syllabus, because it is from the Pope and of the Pope. " Before the Council of the Vatican, every Catholic was bound to submit to and obey the Syllabus ; the Council of the Vatican has made no difference in that obliga- tion of conscience." He questions its title, indeed, to be held as ex cathedra, and this is his main contention against Von Schulte ; but he nowhere denies its infallibility, and he distinctly includes it in the range of Christian obedience. Next, Dr. Newman lays it down that the words of the Syllabus are of no force in themselves, except as far as they correspond with the terms of the briefs to which references are given, and which he admits to be binding. But here Dr. Newman is in flat contradiction to the official letter of Cardinal Antonelli, who states that the Syllabus has been framed, and is sent to the f '^ Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, iv. 420. t Ibid.,v. 549. t Fessler, p. 133. § Fessler, pp. 8, 132, 134. II Ibid., p. 8. •J Newman, p. 20. 'Mbid.,p. 79- tt Ibid., p. 81. tt Ibid., p. 8. §y may know Thus then it tuted for the sTewman says, the Syllabus and not the confidence of regular minis- an of Roman which Infalli- ■ not, since it ised, that is to ould seem to as to practical r the Roman obligation to }f an infallible Syllabus upon orations were \fagazine for sample of its given in the )ject of public 1 through his e Syllabus is and 1870 also neralizes, and d, addressing ce within its for a while ; lietly puts the r of dogma : aticanism to HE Pope. ig takes his ds. erance to the Divine Faith :d either the 3. That the civil allegiance of Roman Catholics is as undivided as that of other Christians, and neither more nor less limited. 4. That the claim of the Roman Church against obedience to the civil power in certain cases is the same as that made by other religious com- munions in England. These four propositions may be treated as two. The first is so allied with the second, and the third with the fourth, that the two members of each pair i-espectivelv must stand or fall together. I can make no objection to the manner m which they raise the ciuestion. I shall leave it to others, I whom it may more concern, to treat tnat portion of his work in which, passing by matters that more nearly touched his argument, he has entered at large on the controversy between Rome and the German Empire ; nor shall 1 now discuss his compendium of Italian history, which in no manner touches the question whether the dominion of the Pope ought again to be imposed by foreign arms upon a portion of the Italian people. Ikit of the four propositions I will say that I accept them all, subject to the very simple condition that the word * not ' be inserted in the three which are affirmative, and its ecjuivalent struck out from the one which is negative. Or, to state the case in my own words : My task will be to make good the two following assertions, which ^were the principal subjects of my former argument : I. That upon the authority, for many generations, of those who pre- their present official Infallibility was not m Seeded Archbishop Manning and his coadjutors [position, as well as upon other authority. Papal " a doctrine of Divine Faith before the Council of the Vatican was held." And that, therefore, the Vatican Decrees have changed the obligations and conditions of civil allegiance. 2. That the claim of the Papal Church against obedience to the civil" power in certain cases not only goes beyond, but is essentially different from that made by other religious communions or by their members in England. And that, therefore, the civil allegiance of those who admit the claim, and carry it to its logical consequences, is not for the purposes of the State Jlfthe same with that of other Christians, but is dififerently limited. 1^ In his able and lengthened work, Archbishop Manning has found space Mfor a dissertation on the great German (juarrel, but has not included, 'in his proof of the belief in Papal Infallibility before 1870, any reference to the history of the Church over which he presides, or the sister Church in Ireland. This very grave deficiency I shall endeavor to make good, by enlarging and completing the statement briefly given in my tract. That statement was that the English and Irish penal laws against Roman Catholics were repealed on the faith of assurances which have not been fulfilled. Had all antagonists been content to reply with the simple ingenuousness of Dr. Newman, it might have been unnecessary to resume this portion of the subject. I make no complaint of the Archbishop ; for such a reply would have destroyed his case. Dr. Newman, struggling hard with the •f difficulties of his task, finds that the statement of Dr. Doyle requires (p. 12) i"some pious interpretation;" that in 1826 the Clergy both of England and Ireland were trained in Gallican opinions (p. 13), and had modes of P thinking " foreign altogether to the minds of the entourage of the Holy See ;" ^ that the British ministers ought to have applied to Rome (p. 14) to learn the m civil duties of British subjects ; and that " no pledge from Catholics was of y any value to which Rome was not a party." This declaration involves all, and more than all, that I had ventured reluctantly to impute. Statesmen of the future, recollect the words, and i8 VATICANISM. recollect from whom they came : from the man who by his genius, piety, and learning towers above all the eminences of the Anglo-Papal communion ; who, so declares a Romish organ,*^ " has been the mind and tongue to shape and express the English Catholic position in the many controversies which have arisen" since 1845, and who nas been roused from his repose on this occasion only by the most fervid appeals to him as the man that could best teach his co-religionists how and what to think. The lesson received is this. Although pledges were given, although their validity was firmlv and even passionately t asserted, although the subject matter was one of civil allegiance, "no pledge from Catholics was of any value to which Rome was not a party" (p. 14). In all seriousness I ask whether there is not involved in these words of Dr. Newman an ominous approximation to mv allegation that the seceder to the Roman Church "places his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another ?" But as Archbishop Manning has asserted that the Decrees of the Vatican have " in no jot or tittle" altered civil allegiance,^ and that " before the Council was held the infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of Divine Faith,"§ and as he is the official head of the Anglo-Roman body, I must test his assertions by one of those appeals to history which he has sometimes said are treason to the Church ;|| as indeed they are in his sense of the Church, and in his sense of treason. It is only justice to the Archbishop to add that he does not stand alone. Bishop Ullathorne says, "The Pope always wielded this infallibility, and all men knew this to be the fact."*ir We shall presently find some men, whose history the Bishop should have been familiar with, who did not know this to be the fact, but very solemnly assured us they knew the exact contrary. This is not an affair, as Dr. Newman seems to think, of a particular generation of clergy who had been educated in Gallican opinions. In all times, from the reign of Elizabeth to that of Victoria, the lay Roman Catholics of England, as a body, have been eminently and unreservedly loyal. But they have been as eminently noted for their thorough estrange- ment from Ultramontane opinions ; and their clergy, down to the period of the Emancipation Act, felt with them ; though a school addicted to curialism and Jesuitism, thrust among them by the Popes at the commencement of the period, first brought upon them grievous sufferings, then succeeded in attaching a stigma to their name, and now threatens gradually to accomplish a transformation of their opinions, with an eventful change in their spirit, of which it is difficult to foresee the bounds. Not that the men who now hold the ancestral view will, as a rule, exchange it for the view of the Vatican ; but that, as in the course of nature they depart, Vaticanists will grow up and take their places. The first official head of the Anglo-Roman body in England was the wise and loyal Archpriest Blackwell. He was deposed by the Pope in 1608, " chiefly, it is supposed, for his advocacy of the Oath of Allegiance,"** which had been devised by King James, in order that he might confer peace and security upon loyal Roman Catholics. t+ Bellarmin denounced, as heretical, its denial of the power of the Pope to depose the King and release his subjects from their allegiance. Pope Paul V. condemned the oath by a , * The Month, December, 1874, p. 461. t Bishop Doyle, Essay on the Claims, p. 38. j Letter to the London Tinut, November 7, 1874. § Letter to the New York Herald, November 10, 1874. Letter to Macmillan's Magazine, October 22. II Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. ^ Bishop Ullathorne, Letter, p. 14. _ ** Butler, Historical Memoirs, vol. tii. p. 411. ft Ibid., vol. i. pp. 303 sqq. brief it not be Septen advisee in Nev doctor! good C' tyranni by Inn< Wh of the renunc France cree.l Wh and otl gregati Brussel time, d' Innoce: e misled Wei divine t Church lies ha) experiei licity !" The of his pi that vie purpose mfallibij " some ( Latin CI Whe rejected 1^ lutely d( U there wc I* principk I Such i century, 1 but subs I tions of I associate ^ ponsible * Butlt t Ibid, X Carol 18. § Carol II Butl( H Ibid. ** The . tt Butle THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBILITY. s, piety, and lommunion ; ;ue to shape ersies which jose on this !t could best eived is this, ly and even il allegiance, e was not a ;se words of je seceder to le mercy of r the Vatican " before the e of Divine ^, I must test iS sometimes sense of the rchbishop to "The Pope fact."*ir We lid have been mnly assured a particular lions. In all lay Roman unreservedly igh estrange- the period of 1 to curialism lement of the tucceeded in o accomplish leir spirit, of vho now hold the Vatican ; jrow up and was the wise 3pe in 1608, ce,"** which :r peace and as heretical, release his e oath by a * ; , . .;> In Pope and general councils must reside, . " .' i'" 't '< ' "• ■ ' '■ Both lawful, both combined ; what one decrees, /' '•'■' '^' ' '> '■ j. '< , ^ By numerous votes, the other ratifies ; ■ >.T',> , j^ .i! On this undoubted sense the Church relies."** When, in 1682, the Gallican Church, by the first of its four Articles, rejected the sophistical distinction of direct and indirect authority and abso- lutely denied the power of the Pope in temporals, to this article, says Butler, there was hardly a dissentient voice either clerical or lay. He adds that this ' principle is " now adopted by the universal Catholic Church."tt Such was the sad condition of the Anglo-Roman body in the seventeenth century. They were ground between the demands of the civil power, stern, '! but substantially just, on the one hand, and the cruel and outrageous imposi- tions of the Court of Rome on the other. Even for the shameful scenes associated with the name and time of Titus Oates that Court is largely res- ponsible : and the spirit that governed it in regard to the Oath of Allegiance * Butler, vol. i. p. 317. ^ t Ibid,, p. 352. _ W' X Caron Kemomtranti;land of any note ; and in 1789, at a general meeting of the English Catholics in London, it was subscribed by every person present.! Thus we have on the part of the entire body of which Archbishop Man- ning is now the head^ a direct, literal, and unconditional rejection of the cardinal tenet which he tells us has always been believed by his Church, and was an article of Divine Faith before as well as after 1870. Nor was it merely that the Protestation and the Relief coincided in time. The protestors explicitly set forth that the penal laws against them were founded on the doctrines imputed to them, and they asked and obtained the relief on the express ground that they renounced and condemned the doctrines. § Some objection seems to have been taken at Rome to a portion (we are not told what) of the terms of the Protestation. The history connected herewith is rather obscurely given in Butle». But the Protestation itself was, while the Bill was before Parliament, deposited in the British Museum, by order of the Anglo-Roman body : "that it may be preserved there as a lasting memorial of their political and moral integrity."!! Two of the four Vicars Apostolic, two clergymen, and one layman withdrew their names from the Protestation on the deposit ; all the rest of the signatures remained. Canon Flanagan's History of the Church in Englami impugns the repre- sentative character of the Committee, and declares that the Court of Rome approved of proceedings taken in opposition to it.H But the material fact is the subscription of the Protestation by the clergy and laity at large. On this subject he admits that it was signed by " the greater part of both clergy and laity ;''** and states that an organization in opposition to the Committee, founded in 1794 by one of the Vicars Apostolic, died a natural death after " a very few years."tt The most significant part of the case, however, is this : that the work of Flanagan, which aims at giving a tinge of the new historical color to the opinions of the Anglo- Roman body, was not published until 1857, when things had taken an altogether new direction, and when the Emancipation controversies had been long at rest. The Act of 1 79 1 for England was followed by that of 1793 for Ireland The Oath inserted in this Act is founded upon the Declaration of 1757, and embodies a large portion of it, including the words : — '' It is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess, that the Pope is infallible." I refer to this Oath, not because I attach an especial value to that class of security, but because we now come to a Synodical Declaration of the Irish Bishops which constitutes perhaps the most salient point of the whole of this singular history. On the 26th of February, i8io, those Bishops declared as follows :-- ' Slater's LeUers on /r<>wrt« Crt//W«V 7>;;f /*-, p. 6, t Butler, Hist. Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 118, 126. X Prelates really should remember that they may lead their trustful lay followers into strange pre- dicaments. Thus Mr. Tdwneley (of T'ownele}[, I believe), in his letter of November t8, to the London Timrs, dwells, I have no doubt with perfect justice, on the loyalty of his ancestors ; but, unhappily, goes on to assert that " the Catholic Church has always held and taught the infalHbility of the Pope in matters of faith and moral.'.." No : the Roman Catholics of England denied it in their Protestation of 1788-9 ; and on the list of the Committee which prepared and promoted that Protestation I find the ■ame of Peregrine Towneloy, of Towneley. — Ibid., vol. ii. p. 304. § Ibid., vol. ii. pp. 119,135. - '•;': ':■■ ' ,'''i >',• '\ i-.i II Ibid., vol. ii. pp. \T,ti-i. \ Flanagan, vol. ii. p. 398. ** Flanagan, vol. ii. p. 394. . , ft Ibid., vol. ii. p. 407. 32 W I iV VATICANISM. " That the said Oath, and the promises, declarations, abjurations, and protestations therein contained, are, notoriously, to the Roman Catholic Church at large, become a part of the Roman Catholic religion at taught by us the Bishops and received and maintained by the Roman Catholic Churches in Ireland; and as such are approved and sanctioned by the other Roman Catholic Churches.**^ It will now, I thinlc, have sufficiently appeared to the reader who has fol- lowed this narration how mildly, I may say now inadequately, 1 have set forth in my former tract the pledges which were given by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church to the Crown and State of the United Kingdom, and by means of which principally they obtained the remission of the penal laws and admission to full civil eauality. We were told in England by the Anglo- Roman Bishops, clergy, and laity that they rejected the tenet of the Pope's infallibility. We were told in Ireland that they rejected the doctrine of the Pope's temporal power, whether direct or indirect, although the Pope had in the most solemn and formal manner asserted his possession of it. We were also told in Ireland that Papal infallibility was no part of the Roman Cath- olic faith, and never could be made a paft of it ; and that the impossibility of incorporating it in their religion was notorious to the Roman Catholic Church at large, and was become part of their religion, and this not only in Ireland, but throughout the world. These are the declarations, which reach in effect from 1661 to 1810 ; and it is in the light of these declarations that the evidence of Dr. Doyle in 1825, and the declarations of the English and Irish prelates of the Papal communion shortly afterward, are to be read. Here, then, is an extraordinary fullness and clearness of evidence, reaching over nearly two centuries ; given by and on behalf of millions of men ; given in documents patent to all the world ; perfectly well known to the See and Court of Rome, as we know expressly with respect to merely the most im- portant of all these assurances, namely, the actual and direct repudiation of mfallibility, in 1788-9. So that either that See and Court had at the last- named date, and at the date of the Synod of 18 10, abandoned the dream of enforcing infallibility on the Church, or else by wilful silence they were guilty of practising upon the British Crown one of the blackest frauds recorded in history. The difficulties now before us were fully foreseen during the sittings of the Council in 1870. In the address prepared by Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, but not deHvered, because a stop was put to the debate, I find these words : — " Quomodo fides sic gubemio Anglicano data conciliari possit cum defini- tione papalis infallibilitatis ipsi viderint qui ex Episcopis Hibernien- sibus, sicut ego ipse, illud juramentum praestiterint."t " In what way the pledge thus given to the English Government can be reconciled with the definition of Papal infallibility, let those of the Irish Bishops consider who, like myself, have taken the oath in question." The Oath, was, I presume, that oi 1793. However, in Friedberg^s Sammlung der Actenstucke zum Concil, p. 151 CTubingen, 1872,) I find it stated, I hope untruly, that the Civilta Cattolica, the prime favorite of Vaticanism, m Series viii., vol. i. p. 730, announced among those who had submitted to the Definition the name of Archbishop Kenrick. Let it not, however, be for a moment supposed that I mean to charge upon those who gave the assurances of 1661, of 1757, of 1783, of 1793, of 1 8 10, of 1825-6, the guilt of falsehood, I have not a doubt that what they said they one and all believed. It is lor Archbishop Manning and his coii- federates, not for me, to explain how these things have come about ; or it is * Slaterjon Komau Catholic Tenets, pp. 14, t 5. \ Friedrich, Doc. ad Illust. Ccnc. Vat. vol. i. p. 219. for Arcl and wh 1810, bi to the 1 choose perjury faith" w mer tra< explana other so And which when he hood th: creed th is not a the who impossil Roman, circular because thewhol they hel • avail to iam, I fe This d J I hope tl 1 throw lie |ter ofDi 1 the Vatic f allegianc ' The < that whc A Romish f But a |and argu liform of '% regard t( A I- In 2. In IV. Thi In a with cul '%. t Dr. ] t Seei I L«ttc yov. i H For ^ denounced I THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALUHIMIX rations, and ioii'c Church ht by us the Churchts in her Roman vho has fol- ive set forth ities of the i Kingdom, if the penal land by the enet of the he doctrine tie Pope had t. We were oman Cath- mpossibility an Catholic not only in vhich reach ations that English and to be read. :e, reaching men ; given he See and ! most im- •udiation of at the last- le dream of they were cest frauds ; sittings of Cenrick, of find these cum deiini- Hibernien- ent can be the Irish riedberg's 1 find it favorite of who had ,) to charge 9f 1793, of what they d his con- It ; or it is ifor Archbishop MacHale, who joined as a Dishnp in the assurances of 1826, ^and who then stood in the shadow and recetir recollection of the Synod of 1810, but who now is understood to have becoiu o ^ party, by promulgation, ito the Decree of the Pope's Infallibility. There arc hut two alternatives to choose between ; on the one side, that which I reject, the hypothesis of sheet perjury and falsehood ; on the other, that policy of" violence and change in I faith" which I charged, and stirred so much wrath by charging, in my for- mer tract. I believed, and 1 still believe it to be true, as well as the ntilder ; explanation. It is for those who reject it to explain their preference for the i other solution of this most curious problem of history.* And now what shall we say to that coloring power of imagination with which Dr. Newmant tints the wide land!>cape of these most intractable facts, when he says it is a pity the Hishops could not have anticipated the likeli- I hood that in 1870 the Council of the Vatican would attach to the Christian creed the Article of the Pope's infallibility. A pity it may be; but it surely is not a wonder : because they told us a fact notorious to themselves, and to [the whole Roman Catholic world, that the passing of such a decree was limpossible | Let us reserve our faculty of wonder for the letter of an Anelo- JRoman, or, if he prefers it, Romano-Anglican Bishop, who in a published Icircular presumes to term " scandalous " the letter of an English gentleman, Ibecause in that letter he had declared he still held the belief which in 1788-9 the whole body of the Roman Catholics of^ England assured Mr. Pitt that they held ;§ and let us learn which of the resources of theological skill will ■*. avail to bring together these innovations, and the semper eadem of which I i am, I fear, but writing the lamentable epitaph. Jl " Non bine conveniunt, nee in una sede morantur.**!! ;^ This Question has been raised by me primarily as a British question ; and |; I hope that, so far as this country is concerned, I have done something to % throw li^ht upon the question whether Papal infallibility was or was not mat- ^iter of Divine Faith before 1870 ; and consequently on the question whether € the Vatican Decrees h^ve " in no jot or tittle " altered the conditions of civil lallegiance in connection with this infallibility. 1( ,;| The declaration of the Irish prelates in iSiowas a full assurance to us .^j?that what they asserted for their country was also asserted for the whole ^Romish world. If But as evidence has been produced which goes directly into antiquity, ,|and arguments have been made to show how innocuous is the new-fangled I form of religion, I proceed to deal with such evidence and argument in I? regard to my two-fold contention against the Decrees — Ik I. In respect to infallibiUty. :. \ 2. In respect to obedience. ,,. ;•■.,/ ' , Jj IV. The Vatican Council and the Infallibility of the Pope.— Continued. , : -I-. :,,■■■■ .' "i •'-■'■'■'■ , Breach with History, No. 2. In a single instance, I have to express my regret for a statement made with culpable inadvertence. It is in p. 28 (Am. ed. p. 22), where I have '* See Appendices D and £. ^ : , . ,.,...,.. > . ,'. ♦ Dr. Newman, p. 17. t See Appendix b. I Letter of Mr. Petre to the London Ti$jtet of Nov. 15, 1874 ; of Bishop Vaughan, Jan. a, 1875. II Ov. Mitamorpk. i For a practical indication of the effect produced by the Roman Catholic disclaimers, now denounced as " scandalous," see Appendix £, '% 24 VATICANISM. Stated that the. Popes had kept xip their claim to dogmatic infallibility with comparatively little intermission " for well-nigh one thousand years.'' I can not even account for so loose an assertion, except by the fact that the point lay out of the main line of my arfjument, and thus the slip of the pen once made, escaped correction. Of the claim to a supremacy virtually absolute, which I combined with the other claim, the statement is true ; for this may be carried back, perhaps, to the ninth century and the appearance of the false Decretals. That was the point which entered so largely into the great conflicts of the Middle Ages. It is the point which I have treated as the more momentous ; and the importance of the tenet of infallibility in faith and morals seems to mo to arise chiefly from its aptitude for combination with the other. As matter of fact, the stability and great authority of the Roman Church in controversies of faith were acknowledged generally from an early period. But the heresy of Honorius, to say nothing of other Popes, became, from his condemnation by a General Council, and by a long series of Popes as well as by other Councils, a matter so notorious that it could not fade from the view even of the darkest age ; and the possibility of an heretical Pope grew to be an idea perfectly familiar to the general mind of Christendom. Hence in the Bull C«w ex Apostolatus Officio, Paul IV, declares (1559) that if a heretic is chosen as Pope, all his acts shall be void ab initio. All Christians are absolved from their obedience to him, and enjoined to have recourse to the temporal power.* So likewise in the De- cretals themselves it is provided that the Pope can only be brought to trial in case he is found to deviate from the faith.f It is an opinion held by great authorities that no pontiff before Leo X. attempted to set up the infallibility of Popes as a dogma. Of the citations in its favour which are arrayed by Archbishop Mannmg in his Ptivilcgium Petti^ I do not perceive any earlier than the thirteenth century which appear so much as to bear upon the question.t There is no Conciliary declaration, as 1 need scarcely add, of the doctrine. This being so, the point is not of primary importance. The claim is one thing, its adoption by the Church, and the interlacing of it with a like adoption of the claim to obedience, are another. I dcf not deny to the opinion of Papal infallibility an active, though a checkered and intermittent life exceeding six centuries. Since, then, I admit that for so long a time the influences now triumphant in the Roman Church have been directed towards the end they have at last attained, and seeing that my statement as to the liberty which prevailed before 1870 has been impunged, I am bound to offer some proof of that statement. I will proceed, in this instance as in others, by showing that my allegation is much within the truth : that not only had the L.atin Church for- borne to adopt the tract of Papal infaUibity, but that she was rather bound by consistency with her own principles, as recorded in history, to repel and re- pudiate that tenet. I refer to the events of the great epoch marked by the Council of Constance. And the proof of the state of facts with regard to that epoch will also be proof of my more general allegation that the Church of Rome does not keep good faith with history, as it is handed down to her, and marked out for her, by her own annals. I avoided this discussion in the former tract, because it is necessarily tinctured with theology ; but the denial is a challenge, which I can not refuse to take up. It is alleged that certain of my assertions may be left to confute one another. I will show that they are perfectly consistent with one another. The first of them charged on Vaticanism that it had disinterred and brought into action the extravagant claims of Papal authority, which were fliadvai into iftian C Infal , absoh ifdecrei Voii Schulte, Pmwr of the Popes, vol. iv. p. 30. t " Hiijus culp.is istic retlarguere prK-'sumit mortalium nullus, qiii.-i cunctos l| iicniine est jutliaiiidus, nisi deprehendatur a Jide devius." Deer. i. Dist. xl. c. vi. { Ffiri Frivile^ium, vol, ii, pp. 70-91. nullus, qui:i cunctos ipse judiciturus a infallibility with 1 years.'' I can X that the point F the pen once ■tually absolute, ; for this may learance of the r into the great treated as the ibility in faith or combination uthority of the generally from thing of other , and by a long otorious that it le possibility of le general mind ^_fido, Paul IV. ts shall be void :e to him, and wise in the De- ought to trial in " before Leo X. 3f the citations lis Ptivilcgium century which i no Conciliary s being so, the , its adoption of the claim to jal infallibility six centuries, ow triumphant ey have at last hich prevailed proof of that lowing that my tin Church for- ither bound by repel and re- narked by the regard to that the Church of •wn to her, and cussion in the but the denial to confute one le another, isinterrcd and V, which were ipse judicaturus a ™: THF, VATICAN COUNCIL AND [XKAI.MltlLIi V, advanced by Popes at the climax of their power, but which never entered ; into the faith even of the Latin Church. The second, that it had added two if not three new articles to the Chris- tian Creed : the two articles of the Immaculate Conception and of Papal Infallibility ; with what is at least a new law of Christian obligation — the u absolute duty of all Christians and all Councils to obey the Pope in his « decrees and commands, even where fallible, over the whole domain of faith, > morals, and the government and discipline of the Church. This law is now for the first time, I believe, laid down by the joint and infallible authority of ; Pope and Council. Dr. Newman* wonders that I should call the law ^absolute. I call it absolute because it is without exception and without if limitation. tTo revive obsolete claims to authority, and to innovate in matter of jy belief, are things perfectly compatible : we have seen them disastrously com- ;? bined. In such innovation is involved, as I will now show, a daring breach ' with history. ,j; While one portion of the Roman theologians have held the infallibility of the Pope, many others have taught that an (Ecumenical Council, together with a Pope, constitutes /(?;' se an infallible authority in faith and morals. I believe it to be also true that it was, down to that disastrous date, compatible with Roman orthodoxy to hold that not even a Pope and a Council united could give the final seal of certainty to a definition, and that for this end there was further necessary the sanction, by acceptance, of the Church ^diffused. This last opinion, however, seems to have gone quite out of y.fashion; and I now address myself to the position in argument of those who • hold that in the decree of a Council, approved by the Pope, the character of infallibility resides. Both the Council of Constance and the Council of the Vatican were in the ■^ Roman sense Oecumenical ; and it is this class of councils alone that is meant f where infallibiUty is treated of. I shall endeavour to be brief, and to use ^the simplest language. The Council of the Vatican decreed (chap, iii.) that the Pope had from Christ immediate power over the universal Church (par. ii.). That all were bound to obey him, of whatever rite and dignity, collec- tively as well as individually {cujuscunque riiits et dignitatis . . . .tarn seorsum ' finguli, quam siinul o?nnes--\\i\d.). That this duty of obedience extended to all matters of faith, of morals, und of the discipline and government of the Church (Ibid., and par. iv.). That in all ecclesiastical causes he is judge, without appeal or possibiHty of reversal (par. iv.). That the definitions of the Pope in faith and morals, delivered ex cathedra, are irreformable, and are invested with the infallibility granted by Christ in the said subject-matter to the Church (chap. iv.). Now let us turn to the Council of Constance. This Council, supported by the following Council of Basle before its translation to Ferrara, had decreed in explicit terms that it had from Chr ist immediate power over the universal Church, of which it was the represen- tative. That all were bound to obey it, of whatever state and dignity, even if Papal, in all matters pertaining to faith, or to the extirpation of the subsisting schism, or to the reformation of the Church in its head and its members.! In conformity herewith, the Council of Constance cited, as being itself a superior authority, three Popes to its bar. Gregory XII. anticipated his sentence by resignation. Benedict XIII. was deposed, as was John XXill. Dr. Newman, pp. 45, 53. Labbc, Concilia, vol. xii. p. ■21, eil. Paris, 167 26 VATICANISM. for divers crimes and oflfences, but not for heresy. Having thus made void the Papal Chair, the Council elected thereto Pope Martin V. It is not my object to attempt a general appreciation of the Council of Constance. There is much against it to be said from many points of view, if there be more for it. But I point out that, for the matter now in hand, the questions of fact are clear, and that its decrees are in flat and diametrical contradiction to those of the Vatican. This of itself would not constitute any difficulty for Roman theology, and would give no proof of its breach with history. It is admitted on all or nearly all hands that a Council, however great its authority may be, is not of itself infallible. What really involves a fatal breach with history is, when a body, which professes to appeal to it, having proclaimed a certain organ to be infallible, then proceeds to ascribe to it to-day an utterance contradictory to its utterance of yesterday ; and, thus depriving it not only of all certainty, but of all confidence, lays its honor prostrate in the dust. This can only be brought home to the Roman Church, if two of her Councils, contra- dicting one another in the subject-matter of faith or morals, have each respectively been confirmed by the Pope, and have thus obtained, in Roman eyes, the stamp of infallibility. Now this is what I charge in the present instance. It is not disputed, but loudly asseverated, by Vaticanists that the Council of the Vatican has been approved and confirmed by the Pope. But an allegation has been set up that the Council of Constance did not receive that confirmation in respect to the Decree of .the Fifth Session which asserted its power, given by Christ, over the Pope. Bishop Ullathorne says : " Although the mode of proceeding in that Council was really informal, inasmuch as its members voted by nations, a portion of its doctrinal decrees obtained force through the dogmatic Constitution of Martin V." * Here it is plainly implied that the Decree of the Fifth Session was not confirmed. And I have read in some Ultramontane production of the last three months an exulting observation that the Decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions were not confirmed by the Pope, and that thus, I presume like the smitten fig-tree, they have remained a dead letter. Let us examine this allegation ; but not that other statement of Archbishop Man- ning that the proceeding was null from the nullity of the assembly, the irre- gularity of the voting, and the heterodoxy of the matter.t The Pope's con- firmation covers and disposes of all these arbitrary pleas. Whether it did so or not, is to be tried by the evidence of authoritative documents. In the record of the Council of Constance we are told that, in its forty- fifth session, the Pope declared, not that he confirmed a part of its doctrinal decrees, but " that he would hold and inviolably observe, and never counter- act in any manner, each and all of the things which the Council had in full assembly determined, concluded, and decreed in matters of faith {in materiis fidei)."X And he approves and ratifies accordingly. Embracing all the decrees described in its scope, this declaration is in tone as much an adhesion, as a confirmation by independent or superior authority. But let that pass. Evidently it gives all that the Pope had in his power to give. The only remaining question is, whether the Decree of the Fifth Session was, or was not, a decree of faith ? Now, upon this question there are at least two independent lines of argu- ment, each of which, respectively and separately, is fatal to the Ultramon- * Expostulation Unraveled, p. 4a. t Petri Privilegium, ii. gs, { Labbe, Concilia, vol. xii. p. 258. See Appendix F for the most important passages. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBILITY. V us made void le Council of oints of view, now in hand, id diametrical theology, and ted on all or y be, is not of )ry is, when a tain organ to contradictory ■ all certainty, This can only Lincils, contra- ils, have each obtained, in I charge in ists that the le Pope. Constance did Fifth Session lop Ullathorne really informal, its doctrinal lartin V." * :h Session was production of decrees of the ind that thus, I letter. Let us :hbishop Man- smbly, the irre- "he Pope's con- hether it did so Its. at, in its forty- of its doctrinal never counter- ncil had in full ith {in materiis iclaration is in ent or superior Pope had in his le Fifth Session It lines of argu- the Ultramon- l>assages. viane contention : this contention being that, for want of the confirmation of i'Vope Martin V., that Decree fell to the ground. First : Pope Martin V. derived his whole power to confirm from his lection to the Papal Chair by the Council. And the Council was competent I elect, because the See was vacant. And the See was vacant, because of the lepoistions of the three rival Popes ; fgr if the See was truly vacant before, "lere had been no Pope since the schism of 1378, which is not supposed by Kther side. But the power of the Council to vacate the See was in virtue of le principle asserted by the Decree of the Fifth Session. We arrive then |t the following dilemma. Either that Decree had full validity by the confir- lation of the Pope, or Martin the Fifth was not a Pope ; the Cardinals made |r confirmed by him were not Cardinals, and could not elect validly his jccessor, Eugene IV. ; so that the Papal succession has failed since an early |ate in the fifteenth century, or more than four hundred and fifty years ago. Therefore the Decree of the Fifth Council must upon Roman principles ^ave been included in the mater ice fide i determined by the Council, and was ;l|onBrmed by Pope Martin V. ^' But again. It has been held by some Roman writers that Pope Martin V. % 5. That a so-called (Ecumenical Council of the Roman Church, confirmed ei' non-confirmed by the Pope, has, upon its own showing, no valid claim to infallible authority. > The gigantic forgeries of the false Decretals, the general contempt of Vaticanism for history, are subjects far too wide for me to touch. But for the piesent I leave my assertion in this matter to stand upon — I The case of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom before 1829. 2. The Decrees of the Council of Constance, compared with the Decrees •f the Council of the Vatican. When these assertions are disposed of, it will be time enough to place others in the rank. I will now say a word on the cognate subject of Qalli- canism, which has also been brought upon the carpet. 28 VATICANISM. It would be unreasonable to expect from Archbishop Manning greater accuracy in his account of a foreign Church than he has exhibited with regard to the history of the conimunion over which he energetically presides. As the most famous and distinct of its manifestations was that exhibited in the Four Articles of 1682, it has pleased the Archbishop to imagine, and imagining, to state, that in that year (iallicanism took its rise. Even with the help of this airy supposition, he has to admit that in the Church where all is unity, certainty, and authority, a doctrine contrary to divine faith, yet proclaimed by the Church of F" ranee, was, for want of a General Council, tolerated for one hundred and eighty-eight years. Indeed, he alleges* the errors of the Council of Constance, four hundred and sixty years ago, as a reason for the Council of the Vatican. *' Nor were Catholics free to deny his infallibility before 1870. The denial of his infallibility had indeed never been condemned by a definition, because st'nci' the rise of Gallicaiiisin in 1682 no lEcumenical Council had ever been convoked. "t I will not stop to inquire why, if the Pope has all this time been infallible, a Council was necessary for the issuing of a definition ; since we are now on matters of history, and the real difficulty would be to know where to dip into the prior history of France without finding matter in utter contradiction to the Archbishop's allegation. An Anglo- Roman writer has told us that in the year 1612 [query 1614?) the assembly of the Galilean Church declared that the power of the Popes related to spiritual matters and eternal life, not to civil concerns and temporal possessions.^^ In the year 1591, at Mantes and Chartres, the prelates of France in their Assembly refused the order of the Pope to c|uit the King, and on the 21st of September repudiated his Bulls, as being null in substance and in form.§ It has always been understood that the French Church played a great part in the Council of Constance : is this also to be read backward, or effaced from the records .' Or, to go a little farther back, the Council of Paris in 1393 withdrew its obedience altogether from Benedict XIII., without transferring it to his rival at Rome ; restored it upon cond'tions in 1403 ; again withdrew it, because the conditions had not been fulfilled, in 1406 ; and so remained until the Council of Constance and the election of Martin VM| And what are we to say to Fleury, who writes : " Le concile de Constance etablit la maxime de tout temps enseignee en F ranee y que tout Pape est soumis au jugement de tout concile universel en ce qui concerne la foi. '^ One of the Four Articles of 1682 simply reaffirms the decree of Con- stance ; and as Archbishop Manning has been the first, so he will probably be the last person to assert that Gallicanism took its rise in 1682. This is not the place to show how largely, if less distinctly, the spirit of what are called the Galilean liberties entered into the ideas and institutions of England, Germany, and even Spain. Neither will I dwell on the manner in which the decrees of Constance ruled for a time not only the minds of a school or party, but the poii::y of the Western Church at large, and proved their efficacy and sway by the remarkable submission of Eugenius IV. to the Council of Basle. But I will cite the single sentence in which Mr. Hallam, writing, alas, nearly sixty years back, has summed up the case of the decrees of Constance : " These decrees are the great pillars of that moderate theory with respect to the P embracec jics, on tl * Petri Privilegium, ii. 40. t Letter to Macmillans Mas^arAnc, Oct. 2:2, 1874. { Cited in Slater's Letters, p. jj, from Hook"'. Priucipia, iii. 577. S Contmuator of Fleury, Hist. Ecci., xxxvi., 3^7 (Hook 169, cli 84). il Dii Chastenet, Nouvettc Histoire liu Cou'c. lie Constance (I'leface): and Preuves, dd. 7Q. 84 S'll-. 95. 479(i'aris, 1718.) ^ vv n> T Fleury Noitv. Opnsc p. 44, cited in Dcniai-lre, D,> P.ipe, p. 8j. See .-»lso Fleury. Ifist. F.ai. (Book 102, ch. 188). '* Archl: the Third Christian wa» pre\ the Churi thinks a ! The 1 Council c or goveri of Floren potestas, point. F may still it does n( obedienci under th limitatior The . Council i with mui context, anathem. disciplim mischie the who it might law for be limitei But the But forcemen how to Universa perfectly recognizt He is th himself, his work ideas, he I knc conceive a Gener referred those w reference • Hist \ Arcli t Ibid, OBKDIKNCK lO THK I'OPE. ng grciter vith regard Jes. : exhibited lagine, and Even with irch where e faith, yet li Council, illeges* the s ago, as a The denial on, because I had ever n infallible, are now on to dip into adiction to that in the Glared that life, not to VI antes and ►rder of the [lis Bulls, as ;rstood that nee : is this go a little e altogether »e ; restored ions had not nstance and ^ho writes : mseignee en iversel en ce ree of Con- nil probably the spirit of [ institutions I the manner ; minds of a and proved us IV. to the Mr. Hallam, f the decrees with respect 'enves, pp. T)< 8^ eury, lliit. F.aL to the Papal authority which distinguished the (iallican Church, and is embraced, 1 presume, by almost all la\ men. and the major part of ecclesias- tics, on this side the Alps.'"* ,. , . . V. The Vaticax Councii, and Oukdikxci: to the Popk. <■■- Archbishop Manning has boldly grappled with my proposition that the Third Chapter of the Vatican Decrees had forged new chains for the Christian people, in regard to obedience, by giving its authority to what was previously a claim of the Popes only, and so making it ;i claim of the Church. He is astonished at the statement : and he offers + what he thinks a sufficient confutation of it in six citations. The four last of these begin with Innocent III., and end with the Council of Trent. Innocent III. and Sixtus IV. simply claim the regimen, or government of the Church, which no one denies tliem. The Council of Florence speaks of plena potestas, and the Council of Trent of suprema potestas, as belonging to the Pope. Neither of the assertions touch the point. Full power, and supreme power, in the goverment of a body, may still be limited by law. No other power can be above them. But it does not follow that. they can command frorrt all persons an unconditional obedience, unless themselves empowered by law so to do. We are familiar, under the British monarchy, both with the term supreme and with its Hmitation. The Archbishop, however, quotes a Canon or Chapter of a Roman Council in 863, which anathematizes all who despise the Pope's orders with much breadth arid amplitude of phrase. If taken without the context, it fully covers the ground taken by the Vatican Council. It anathematizes all who contemn the decrees of the Roman See in faith, discipline, or correction of manners, or for the remedy or prevention of mischief. Considering that the four previous Canons of this Council, and the whole proceedings, relate entirely to the case of the Divorce of Lothair, it might, perhaps, be argued that the whole constitute only a. privileiiium, or law for the individual case, and that the anathema of the Fifth Canon must be limited to those who set at naught the Pope's proceedings in that case. But the point is of small consequence to my argument. But then the Roman Council is local, and adds no very potent rein- forcement to the sole authority of the Pope. The question then remains how to secure for this local and Papal injunction the sanction of the Universal Church, in the Roman sense of the word. Archbishop Manning, perfectly sensible of what is required of him, writes that " this Canon was recognized in the Eighth General Council held at Constantinople in 869." He is then more than contented with this array of proofs ; and, confining himself, as I am bound to say he does in all personal matters throughout his work, to the mildest language consistent with the full expression of his ideas, he observes that I am manifestly out of my depth. J I know not the exact theological value of the term " recognized;" but 1 conceive it to mean virtual adoption. .Such an adoption of such a claim by a General Council appeared to me a fact of the utmost significance. I referred to many historians of the Church ; but 1 found no notice of it in those whom I consulted, including Baronius. From these unproductive references I went onwards to the original documents. • //«>/. ('/ the Middle A^es, cli. vii. part t Archbishop Manning, pp. 12, 13. j Ibid., i^aiican Dfcnrs, pp. 12, ij. 30 VATICANISM. The Eighth General Council, so called, comprised only those Bishops of the East who adhered do and were supported by the See of Rome and the Patriarch Ignatius in the great conflict of the ninth century. It would not, therefore, have been surprising if its canons had given some at least equi- vocal sanction to the high Papal claims. But, on the contrary, they may be read with the greatest interest as showing, at the time immediately bordering on the publication of the false Decretals, how little way those claims had made in the general body of the Church. The system which they describe is the Partriarchal, not the Papal system ; the fivefold distribution of the Christian Church under the five great Sees of the Elder and the New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Of these the Pope of Rome is the first, but as primus inter pares (Canons XVII., XXL, Lat.).* The causes of clergy on appeal are to be finally decided by the Patriarch in each Pat- riarchate (Canon XXVT., Lat.) ;t and it is declared that any General Council has authority to deal, but should deal respectfully, with controversies of or touching the Roman Church itself (Canon XXI. Lat., XIII. Gr.).t This is one of the Councils which solemnly anathematizes Pope Honorius as a heretic. The reference made by Archbishop Manning is, as he has had the good- ness to inform me, to the Second Canon.§ The material words are these : " Regarding the most blessed Pope Nicolas as an organ of the Holy Spirit, and likewise his most holy successor Adrian, we accordingly define and enact that all which they have set out and promulgated synbdically from time to time, as well for the defence and well-being of the Church of Constantinople, and of its Chief Priest and most holy Patriarch Ignatius, as likewise for the expulsion and condemnation of Photius, neophyte and intruder, he always observed and kept alike entire and untouched, under (or according to) the heads set forth {aim expositis capitHlis)."\\ There is not in the Canon anything relating to the Popes generally, but only to two particular Popes ; nor any reference to what they did personally, but only to what they did synodically ; nor to what they did synodically in all matters, but only in the controversy with Photius and the Eastern Bishops adhering to him. There is not one word relating to the Canon of 863, or to the Council which passed it : which was a Council having nothing to do with the Photian controversy, but called for the purpose of supporting Pope Nicolas I. in what is commonly deemed his righteous policy with respect to the important case of the Divorce of Lothair.^T So that the demonstration of the Archbishop falls wholly to the ground ; and down to this time my statement remains entire and unhurt. The matter contained in it will remain very important until the Council or the Pope shall amend its decree so as to bring it into conformity with the views of Dr. New- man, and provide a relief to the private conscience by opening in the great gate of Obedience a little wicket-door of exceptions for those who are minded to disobey. Had the Decrers of 1870 been in force in the sixteenth and se. ,'itcenth centuries, Roman Catholic peers could not have done what, until the reign of Charles II., they did ; could not have made their way to the House of Lords by taking the oath of allegiance, despite the Pope's command. But that is not all. The Pope ex cathedra had bidden the Roman Catholics of England in the eighteenth century, and in the sixteenth, and from the fourteenth, to ' Labbe(ed. Paris, 1671), vol. x. pp. 1136, 1140 t Ibid., p. 1 143. t Ibid., pp. 1140, 1373. i Ibid., p. 1127 Lat., p. 1367 Gr. ; where the reader should be on his guard .leamst the Latin version, and look to the Greek original. II See the original in Appendix G. i Labbe vol. x. pp. 766 sqq. • T>, shops of and the )uld not, ast equi- may be )ordering lims had describe >n of the w Rome, the first, causes of :ach Pat- il Council ies of or This is irius as a the good- these : oly Spirit, and enact n time to antinople, se for the he always ig to) the erally, but aersonally, cally in all n Bishops 863, or to to do with ting Pope respect to e ground ; rhe matter Pope shall ■ Dr. New- the great ire minded e. .-'teenth he reign of e of Lords 3ut that is tf England rteenth, to nst the Lilt ill REVIVED CLAIMS OF THE PAPAL CHAIR. 3» believe in the Deposing power as an article of faith. But they rejected it ; and the highest law of their Church left them free to reject it. Has it not bound them now? The Pope in the sixteenth century bade the Roman Cathohcs of England assist the invasion of the Spanish Armada. They disobeyed him. The highest law of their Church left them free to disobey. Are they free now ? That they will assert this freedom for themselves I do not question— nay, I entirely believe. From every standing-point, except that of Vaticanism, their title to it is perfect. With Vaticanism to supply their premise, how are they to conclude ? Dr. Newman says there are excep- tions to this precept of obedience. But this is just what the Council has not said. The Church by the Council imposes Aye. The private conscience reserves to itself the title to say No. I must confess that in this apology there is to me a strong, undeniable smack of Protestantism. To reconcile Dr. Newman's conclusions with the premises of the Vatican will surely require all, if not more than all, " the vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the Schola Theologorum."* The days of such proceedings, it is stated, are gone by ; and I believe that, in regard to our country, they have passed away beyond recall. But that is not the present question. The present question is whether the right to perform such acts has been effectually disavowed. With this question I now proceed to deal. VI. Revived Claims of the Papal Chair. ; 1. The Deposing Power. 2. The Use of Force. It will perhaps have been observed by others, as it has been by me, that from the charges against my account of the Syllabus are notably absent two of its most important and instructive heads. I accuse the Syllabus of teach- ing the right of the Church to use Force, and of maintaining the Deposing power. When my tract was published, I had little idea of the extent to which, and (as to some of them) the hardihood with which, those who should have confuted my charges would themselves supply evidence to sustain them. Bishop Clifford, indeed, sustains the deposing power on the ground that It was accorded to the Pope by the nations. It was simply a case like that of the Geneva Arbitrators.! Dr. Newman X defends it, but only upon con- ditions. The circumctances must be rare and critical. The proceedings must be judicial. It must appeal to the moral law. Lastly, there must be a united consent of various nations. In fine. Dr. Newman accepts the depos- ing power only under the conditions which, as he thinks, the Pope himself lays down. These allegations quiet my fears ; but they strain my faith ; and, purport- ing to be historical, they shock my judgment. For they are, to speak plainly, without foundation. The Arbitrators at Geneva settled a dispute, which they recited in formal terms, that the two parties to it had empowered and invited them to settle. The point of consent is the only weighty one amonjj the four conditions of Dr. Newman, and is the sole point raised by Bishop Clifford. Did, then, Paul III., as arbitrator in the case of Henry VIII., pursue a like procedure ? The first words of his Bull are, " The condemna- • Dr. Newman, p. 121. t Pastoral Letter,^. \i. 1 Dr. Newman, pp. 36, 37. 3^ VATICANISM. tion and oxcomnuinication of Henry VIII.. Kinj; of Kn^jland :" not ;in au- spicious bejj;innin^(. There is nothing; at all about arbitration or consent of any body, but a solemn and a tierce recital of power received from (]od, not from the nations, or from one nation, or from any fraction of a nation ; power " over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and destroy, to build up and to plant, as chief o\ er all kings of the whole earth, and all peoples possessing: rule." Exactly similar is the "arbitration" of I'uis V. between himself and Klizabeth to the " arbitration " of Paul III. between himself and Henry VI II. Archbishop Manning, indeed, has thrown ■■ in a statement, the utility of which it is hard to undersuind, that Oueen Elizal)eth " was baptized a Catholic. " She was baptized after Appeals to Home had been abolished, and two years after the Clergy had owned to the King that title of Headship which Mary abolished, and which never has been revived. Hut Archbishop Manning knows quite well that the I'apal claims of right extend to all baptized persons whatever, and <2ueen Victoria could have no exemption unless it could be shown that she was unbaptized. The doctrine of the consent of nations is a pure imagination. The general truth of the matter is that the I'opes of the .Middle Ages, like some other persons and professions, throve upon the discords of their neighbors. Other powers were only somewhere ; the Pope in the West, was every where. Of the two parties to a quarrel, it was worth the while of each to bid for the assistance of the Pope against his enemy ; and he that bid the highest, not merely in dr\- acknowledgment of the i\ipal perogatives, but also commonly in the solid tribute of Peters pence or i)atronages, or other tangible advant- ages, most commonly got the support of the Pope. This is a brief and rude outline ; but it is history, and the other is fiction. Hut does Dr. Newman stand better at this point .' He only grants the deposing power in the shape in which the Pope asks it ; and he says the Pope only asks it on the conditions of which one is '' a united consent of various nations."! In the Speech of the Pope, however, which he cites, there is nothing corresponding to this account. The Pope says distinctly, "of this right the /■>«///(://ms (not the Infallibility, but} the Pontifical Au- thority." The people of the Middle Ages— who t did they do .' made him an arbitrator or judge.' No: but recognized in him that which— what .'' he was .^ no: but— "he IS ; the Supreme Judge of Christendom." The right was created, but " assisted, as was DUE to it, by the public law and common consent of the nations." If this is not enough, I will complete the demon- stration. An early report of the Speech X from the Roman newspapers winds up the statement by describing the Deposing Power as " A right which the Popes, invited by the call of the nattons, kad to exer- cise, when the general good demanded it.'" But in the authorized and linal report § given in the Collection of the Speeches of Pius IX., this passage is corrected, and runs thus : "A right which the Popes exercist, m irtue of their authority when the general good demanded it.";; Thus Bishop Clittbrd and Dr. Newman are entirely at issue with the Pope respectmg the deposing power. Will they not have to reconsider what they are to say, and what they are to believe .= That power, it must be borne in ,i.nv'rSw^>,^';V" ^'-'IL"'"*-,^'- '■ ,^^- '••'= -^"^'hema. of the Council of Trent a-ninst those who aen> that heretics, as being Uiptised persoiis.r.re b.3u.nd to obedience to the Church. I hep- the Arch- bishop has not uicautiod^Iy incurred thcii. ^ * Dr. Ncwm.ii!, ji. j;. t TiitU:, \ovember :\, i?74, Letter cf C S. P. J Pu.-i-'-s: i: .":.• /X. vol. i. p. jc-,. <,. l.^v'V^^r'' ''^^ *^'" ' •""^''f ^<^^P<^^~t^!=) ■ " ^'-^ -i^r::to, che i P.oi. ,^^am:t: dal v^i, U:t-.--i;t\'p'' '■'"'' 'v*''''' '■'*"''?''-'■''•;-"'''?"" ^-■""= '3dcT...ndava.- Authcrued on^in.U : " Un 'iir.ttc .he .. P.it,. ^T.^aUr^: :. :;^.'.. j,;.'a ..•-.• Aui.-r,-^ ,;.,u-,ae i! coir.un bene lo Jimandav^." ' -•'.uic-'-t.'a. : Ar I .m au- nsent of Ciod, not power , to build I peoples between iiself and utility of iptized a bolished, Headship rchbishop nd to all xemption le general >me other s. Other here. Of d for the ghest, not commonly le advant- f and rude ^jrants the ; says the consent of he cites, distinctly, tifical Au- ide him an -what ? he The right id common the demon- lewspapers /Hi.ti dal f^^' ongin.il : " L'n iitnandava." REVIVED CLAIMS OF THE PAPAL CHAIR. --^ mind, appears to have one of the firmest pos iible Pontifical foundations in the Hull Unam Sanctam, which is admitted on all hands to be a declaration ex cathedra. But it is not to the more moderate views of the Bishop and Dr. Newman that we are to resort for information on the ruling fashions of Roman doc- trine. Among the really orthodox defenders of Vaticanism, who have sup- plied the large majority of Reproofs and Replies, I do not recollect to have • found one single disavowal of the deposing power. Perhaps the nearest ap- proach to it from any writer of this school is supplied by Monsignor Capel who remarks that the Pope's office of arbiter is at an end, or at least in abey- ance"* There are, indeed, enough of disavowals wholly valueless. For ex- ample, disavowals of the universal monarchy; by which it appears to be meant that the Popes never claimed, in temporals, such a monarchial power as is now accorded to them in spirituals, namely, a power absorbing and comprehending every other power whatever. Or, again, disavowals of the directa potestas . For one, I attach not a feather's weight to the distinction between the direct power and the indirect. Speaking in his own person. Archbishop Manning eschews the gross assertions to which in another work he has lent a sanction,t and seems to think he has mended the position when he tells us that the Church— that is to say the Pope—" has a supreme judi- cial office, in respect to the moral law, over all nations and over all persons, both governors and governed." As long as they do right, it is directive and preceptive ; when they do wrong, the black cap of the judge is put on, ratione peccati, "by reason of sin." That is to say, in plain words, the right and the wrong in the conduct of .States and of individuals is now, as it always has been, a matter for the judicial cognizance of the Church ; and the entire ju- dicial power of the Church is summed up in the Pope: " If Christian princes and their laws deriate from the law of God, the Church has authority from God to judge of that deviation, and by all its pozver to enforce the correction of that departure from justice. "J I must accord to the Archbishop the praise of manliness. If we are hence- forward in any doubt as to his opinions, it is by our own fault. I sorrowfully believe, moreovei, tha the does no more than express the general opinion of the teachers who form the ruling body in his Church at large, and of the pre- sent Anglo- Romish clergy almost without exception. In the episcopal mani- festo of Bishop Ullathorne I see nothing to qualify the doctrine. In the Pastoral Letter of Bishop Vaughan the comfort we obtain is this — " it will never, as we believe, be exercised again ;" and " it is a question purely specula- tive. It is no matter of Catholic faith, and is properly relegated to the schools.''^ Bishop Vaughan does not appear to bear in mind that this is ex- actly what we were told, not by his predecessors of 1789, who denied Infalli- bility outright: not by the Synod of 1810, who affirmed it to be impossible that Infallibility ever could become an article of faith ; but even in the '• bated breath" of later times with respect to Infallibility itself, which, a little while after, was called back from the schools and the speculative region, and uplifted into the list ot the Christian credenda; and of which we are now told that it has been believed always and by all, only its boundaries have been a little better marked. In the train of the Bishops f I except Bishop Clifford) come priests, monks, nay, laymen: Vaticanism in all its ranks and orders. And among these champions not one adopts the language even of Bishop Doyle, much less of iSio, much less of 1789. The " Monk of St. Augustine's" is not ashamed to say that Bishop Doyle, who was put forward in his day as the champion and * Dr. Cap«!, p. to. ■< F.ss.iys, etc. Edited by .\rchbushop Vanning. London. t Archbishop Minma^, t'/itUati Dfcra:- pp. 49, jr. * PmsCcrai I.^ittr, pp. 3;, 34. 34 VATICANISM. representative man of the body, " held opinions openly at variance with those of the great mass."* 2. Title to the Use of Force, Equally clear, and equally unsatisfactory, are the Ultramontane declara- tions with respect to the title of the Church to employ force. Dr. Newman holds out a hand to i^rctliren in distress by showing that a theological authority, who inclines to the milder side, limits the kind of force which the Church has of herself a right to employ. " The lighter punishments, though temporal and corporal, such as shutting up in a monastery, prison, flogging, and others of the same kind, short of effusion of blood, the Church, jure SUP, can inflict. "+ And again : The Church does not claim the use of force generally, but only that use of force which Trofcssor Nuytz denied. Wc can from this source better understand the meaning of Archbishop) Manning, when he states^ that the Church has authority from (iod to coMe:;*^ departures from justice by the use of " all its powers." The favorite rnoue of conveying this portion of truth* a portion so modest that it loves not to be seen— is by stating that the Church is a " perfect society." " The Church is a society complete and perfect in and by itself, and amply sufficing not only to bring men to salvation and everlasting bliss, but also to establish and perfectly regulate social life among them."§ The Church has been created, says Bishop V aughan, a " perfect society or kingdom," " with full authority in the triple order as needful for a perfect kingdom, legislative, judicial, and coercive."!! His Metropolitan treats the subject at some leh;^.h : assures us that the members of his communion would not make use of force if they were able, but nowhere disclaims the right.^ Indeed, he can not : he dares not. The inexorable Syllabus binds him to maintain it, as Ixion was bound to his wheel. The subject, however, is one of the burning class ; and it appears to terrify even Archbishop Manning. He refers us to the famous brief or letter of Innocent III., headed A'ovit, in his Appendix, where he states that the text is given in full.** In the document, as it is there given, will be found the Pope's assertion that it is his part to pass judgment on sovereigns in respect of sin (ratiotie peccati), and that he can coerce them by ecclesiastical constraint (districtionem). But the text of the brief is, according to my copy of the Decretals, not given in full ; and the copyist has done the Pope scanty justice. He seems to have omitted what is the clearest and most important passage of the whole, since it distinctly shows that what is contemplated is the use of force : " The Apostle also admonishes us to rebuke disturbers ; and elsewhere he says, ' reprove, intreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine.' Now that we axe able, ajid also bound to coerce, is plain from this, that the Lord says to the Prophet, who was one of the priests of Anathoth : ' Behold, I have appointed thee over the nations and the kings, that thou niayest tear up, and pull down, and scatter, and build, and plant.' "ft Sec J he Month, J.-in. 1875, pp. 82, 84. Monk of St. AugHitvie's, pp. 27 sqq. Rev. J. Curry s Disquisition, pp. 85, 41. Lord R. Montagu, Expostulation in extremis, p. 51. t Carilm.il .Soglia, as cited by Dr. Newman, pp. 8g, go. { Vatican Decrees, p. 43. § Martin, S. J., l)e Mutrtmonio, Noticiics Prctvia- p. ci. 11 I'astoral Letter, p. 13. •I .See Appendix H. ** .\r(;hl)ishop Manning, p. 62, n. tt ^orfiis Juris Cauonici Dccret. Crez. /-A'.. H. i. 13. I cite from Riclucr's td. (Leipsic, i It has all the pretensions of a critical and careful edition. I do not, however, presume to deter the textual question. 839)- etermiue WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. tC With regard to Dr. Newman's limitation of the Proposition, I must cite an authority certainly higher in the Papal sense. The Jesuit Schrader has published, with a Papal approbation attached, a list of the affirmative prooo- sitions answering to the negative condcmations of the Syllabus I extrarr his Article 24 :* ' " ^'^""^ " The Church has the power to apply external coercion (ausseren y.wanir anzuvjenden) : she has also a temporal authority direct and indirect " The remark is appended, " Not souls alone are subject to her authority " All, then, that I stated in the ICxpostulation, on the Deposing Power and on the claims of the Roman Church to employ force, is more than made good. It was, I suppose, to put what Burnet would call a face of propriety on these and such like tenets, that one of the combatants opposed to me in the present controversy has revived an ingenious illustration of that clever and able writer, the late Cardinal Wiseman. He held that certain doctrines pre- sent to us an unseemly appearance, because we stand outside the Papal Church, even as the most beautiful window of stained glass in a church offers to those without only a confused coiii^eries of paint and colors, while it is to an eye viewing it from within all glory and all beauty, liut what does this amount to? It is simply to say that when we look at the object in the free air and full light of day which God has given us, its structure is repulsive and its arrangements chaotic ; but if we will part with a great portion of that light by passing within the walls of a building made by the hand of man, then, indeed, it will be better able to bear our scrutiny. It is an ill recom- mendation of a commodity to point out that it looks the best where the light is scantiest. VII. Warrant of Allegiance according to the Vatican. !. Its Alleged Superiority. 2. Its Real Flaws. 3. Alleged Non-interference of the Popes for T7U0 Hundred Years. Not satisfied with claiming to give guarantees for allegiance equal to those of their fellow-citizens, the champions of the Vatican have boldly taken a position in advance. They hold that they are in a condition to offer a better warranty than ours, and this because they are guided by an infallible Pope, instead of an erraMc private judgment ; and because the Pope himself is exceeding emphatic, even in the Syllabus, on the duties of subjects toward their rulers. Finally, all this is backed and riveted by an appeal to conduct. " The life and conduct of the Church for eighteen centuries are an ample guarantee for her love of peace and justice."t I would rather not discuss this " ample guarantee." Perhaps the Bishop's appeal might shake one who believed : I am certain it would not quiet one who doubted.t The inculcation of civil obedience under the sanction of religion is, so far as I am aware, the principle and practice of all Christian communities. We must therefore look a little farther into the matter in order to detect the dis- tinctive character, in this respect, of the Vatican. Unquestionably the Pope, and all Popes, are full and emphatic on the duties of subjects to rulers ; but of what subjects to what rulers.? It is the Church of England which has evei* been the extravagantly loyal Church ; I * Schrader, as above, p. (^4. ■ t Hisliop Vaughau, p. 28. 36 VATICAK'ISM. W mean which has, in other days, exaj;gcrated the doctrine of civil obedience, and made it an instrument of much political mischief. Passive obedience, non-resistance, and divine right, with all of good or evil they involve, were specifically her ideas. In the theology now dominant in the Church of Rome —the theology which has so long had its nest in the Roman Court these ideas prevail, but with a rider to them : obedience is to be given, divine right is to belong, to those Princes and Governments which adopt the views of Rome, or which promote her interests : to those I'rinces and (iovernmcnts which do right, Rome being the measure of right. I have no doubt that many outside the charmed circle praise in perfect good faith the superior bouquet and body of the wine of Roman Catholic loyalty. But those within, can they make such assertions ? It is hard to believe it. The great art, nowhere else so well understood or so largely practiced, is, in these matters, to seem to assert without asserting. This has been well known at least for near five centuries, since the time of Gerson, whose name for Vaticanism is Adulaiio. Scntiens autem Adulatio quandoquc nimis se co)>nosci, studet quasi modiciore sermone depressius uti, ut credibilior apparent.* I must say that if Vaticanists have on this occasion paraded the superior qua! ty of the article they vend as loyalty, they have also supplied us with the n cans of testing the assertion ; because one and all of them assert the corrective power of the Pope over Christian Sovereigns and Governments. I do not dispute that their commodity is good, in this country, for every-day tear and wear. But as to its ultimate ground work and principle, on which in other places, and other circumstances, it might fall back, of this I will now cite a descrip- tion from one of the very highest authorities ; from an epistle of a most able and conspicuous great Pontiff, to whom reference has already been made, Nicolas the First. When that Pontiff was prosecuting with iron will the cause against the divorce of Lothair from Thcutberga, he was opposed by some Bishops within the dominions of the Emperor. Adventitius, Bishop of Metz, pleaded the duty of obeying his sovereign. Nicolas in reply described his view of that matter in a passage truly classical, which I trjinslate from the Latin, as it is given in Baronius : " You allege, that you subject yourself to Kings and Princes, because the Apostle says, ' Whether to the king, as in authority.' Well and good. Ex- amine, however, whether the Kings and Princes, to whom you say that you submit, are truly Kings' and Princes. Examine whether they govern well, first themselves, then the people under them. For if one be evil to himself, how shall he be good to others? Examine whether they conduct themselves rightly as Princes ; for otherwise they are- rather to be deemed tyrants, than taken for Kings, and we should resist them, and mount up against them, rather than be under them. Otherwise, if we submit to such, and do not put our- selves over them, we must of necessity encourage them in their vices. Therefore be subject 'to the King, as in authority, in his virtues, that is to say, not his faults ; as the Apostle says, for the sake of God, not against God.' "f I cite passage, not to pass a censure in the case, but for its straightfor- ward exposition of the doctrine, now openly and widely preferred, though not so lucidly expounded by the teaching body of the Romish Church. Plainly enough, in point of right, the title of the temporal Sovereign is valid or null according to the view which may be taken by the Pope of the nature of his conduct. " No just Prince," says Archbishop Manning, can be deposed by any power on earth ; but whether a Prince is just or not. is a matter for the Pope to judge of.t ' De Potest. F.ccl., Consideratio XII. ♦ liaronius, A. U. 8f)3, c. Ixx. t Archbishop Manning, 4b. Works, vol. li. \). ^46. Kd. Hague, 1728. We are Princes : i the crowd those I tali entitled to one of th ism is, th: It is as if clemency Butth table in i power, r Cooks nicelv app supply. ". have sligh shows his argument: it is to be that Vatic contend tl which are The sole ( individual the Pope view is all The The who laws, bef< took a vei vidual cit the local men can ascertain, local Cht This sup( had had liaments had wrou including learning single cei mean opi As a exclusion spirit of any intn concerns a certain themselv the State * Bish< t Infra WARRANI OK \I,F,E(HANCK ACC()RDIN(; TO THK VATICAN. 1^ 37 We are told, indeed, that it is not now the custom for the Pope to depose Princes : not even Victor Kmmanuel.* True : he does no more than exnort the crowds who wait upon him in the Vatican to seek for the restoration of those Italian sovercigi s whom the people have driven out. But no man is entitled to take credit for not doing that which he has no power to do. And one of the many irregularities in the mode of argument pursued by Vatican* ism is, that such credit is constantly taken for not attempting the impossible. It is as if Louis XVI., when a prisoner in the Temple, had vaunted nis own clemency in not putting the head of Robespierre under the guillotine. But there are other kinds of interference and aggression, just as intole- rable in principle as the exercise, or pretended exercise, of the deposing power. Have they been given up .' We shall presently see.t 2. Its Real Flaws, Cooks and controversialists seem to have this in common, that they nicely appreciate the standard of knowledge in those whose appetites they supply. The cook is tempted to send up ill-dressed dishes to masters who have slight skill in or care for cookery ; and the controversialist occasionally shows his contempt for the intelligence of his readers by the quality of the arguments or statements which he presents for their acceptance. But this, if it is to be done with safety should be done in measure ; and I must protest that Vaticanism really went beyond all measure when it was bold enough to contend that its claims in respect to the civil power are the same as th )se which are made by the Christian communions generally of modem tii'^es. The sole difference, we are told, is that in one case the Pope, in the other the individual, determines the instances when obedience is to be refused ; and as the Pope is much wiser than the individual, the difference in the Roman view is all in favor of the order of civil society. The reader will, I hope, pay close attention to this portion of the subject. The whole argument greatly depends upon it. Before repealing the penal laws, before granting political equality, the statesmen of England certainly took a very diliferent view. They thought the Roman Catholic, as an indi- vidual citizen, was trustworthy. They were not afraid of relying even upon the local Church. What they were anxious to ascertain, and what, as far as men can through language learn the thought and heart of man, they did ascertain, was this : whether the Roman Catholic citizen, and whether the local Church were free to act, or were subjected to an extraneous authority. This superior wisdom of the Pope of Rome was the very thing of which they had had ample experience ?n the Middle Ages ; which our Princes and Par- liaments long before the reign of Henry VIII. and the birth of Anne Boleyn had wrought hard to control, and which the Bishops of the sixteenth century, including Tunstal and Stokesley, Gardiner and Bonner, used their best learning to exclude. Those who in 1875 propound the doctrine, which no single century of the Middle Ages would have admitted, must indeed have a mean opinion of any intellects which their language could cajole. As a rule, the real independence of states and nations depends upon the exclusion of foreign influence proper from their civil affairs. Wherever the spirit of freedom, even if ever so faintly, breathes, it resents and reacts against any intrusion of another people or Power into the circle of its interior concerns, as alike dangerous and disgraceful. As water finds its level, so, in a certain tolerable manner the various social forces of a country, if left to themselves, settle down into equilibrium. In the normal posture of things, the State ought to control, and can control, its subjects sufficiently for civil l!ii * Bishop Vaughau, Pastoral, p. t Infra. 34- 38 VATICANISM. order and peace ; and the normal is also the ordinary case, in this respect, through the various countries of the civilized world. But the essential condi- tion of this ability, on which all depends, is that the forcts which the State is to govern shall be forces having their seat within its own territorial limits. The power of the State is essentially a local power. But the Trire^no of the Pope, figured by the Tiara, touches heaven, earth, and the place of the departed. We now deal only with the earthly province. As against the local sway of the State, the power of the Pope is ubiquitous ; and the whole of it can be applied at any point within the dominions of any State, although the far larger part of it does not arise within its borders, but constitutes, in the strictest sense, a foreign force. The very first condition of State rule is thus vitally compromised. The power with which the State has thus to deal is one dwelling beyond its limits, and yet beyond the reach of its arm. All the subjects of the State are responsible to the State : they must obey, or they must take the conse- quences. But for the Pope there are no consequences: he is not respon- sible. But it may be said, and it is true, that the State will not be much the bet- ter for the power it possesses of sending all its subjects to prison for disobe- dience. And here we come upon the next disagreeable distinction in the case of the Roman Church. She alone arrogates to herself the right to speak to the State, not as a subject but as a superior ; not as pleading the right of a conscience staggered bv the fear of sin, but as a vast Incorporation, setting up a rival law against the State in the State's own domain, and claiming for it, with a higher sanction, the title to similar coercive means of enforcement. No doubt, mere submission to consequences is, for the State, an inadequate compensation for the mischief of disobedience. The State has duties which are essential to its existence, and which require active instruments. Passive resistance, widely enough extended, would become general anarchy. With the varying and uncombined influences of individual judgment and conscience the State can safely take its chance. But here is a power that claims author- ity to order the millions ; and to rule the rulers of the millions, whenever, in its judgment, those rulers may do wrong. The first distinction then is, that the Pope is himself foreign and not lesponsible to the law ; the second, that the larger part of his power is derived from foreign sources ; the third, that he claims to act, and acts, not by indi- viduals, but on masses ; the fourth, that he claims to teach them, so often as he pleases, what to do at each point of their contact with the laws of their country. Even all this might be borne, and might be comparatively harmless but for that at which I have already glanced. He alone of all ecclesiastical powers presumes not only to hmit the domain of the State, but to meet the State in its own domain. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland showed a resolution never exceeded before the secession of 1843, in resisting the civil power ; but it offered the resistance of submission. It spoke for the body, and its ministers in things concerning it ; but did not presume to com- mand the private conscience. It modest language would be far from filling the OS rotundum of a Roman Pontiff. Nay, the words of the apostle do not suffice for him. St. Peter himself was not near so great as his Successor. He was content with the modest excuse of the individual ; " We ought to obey God rather than man."* Rome has improved upon St. Peter : " Your laws and ordinances we proscribe and condemn, and declare them to be absolutely, both and hereafter from the first, null, void, and of no effect." That is to say, the Pope takes into his own hand the power which he thinks the State to have misused. Not merely does he aid or direct the conscience of those who object, bi all, he pr( Such claims ar the privai unmaske< fore harn is and oui civil orde now told Schrader' temporal coercion. Am I claims of and grav( too thinly whose pa The e all the St from time them, as s weapon a and more Society ol never to fullness ol had been | Catholic the bold tions if p( lible, that the uncor 3.^ It ha doubt he province I will twenty. 1. In absolute! held to See, anc as moral 2. ol cution, i( the estJ tion of declareq effect. . .3- visions ■* Acls V. 2g. SchI WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 39 espect, condi- >tate is limits. h in object, but he even overrules the conscience of those who approve. Above all, he pretends to annul the law itself. Such is the fifth point of essential distinction between these monstrous claims and the modest though in their proper place invincible exigencies of the private conscience. But one void still remains unfilled ; one plea not yet unmasked. Shall it be said, this is all true, but it is all spiritual, and there- fore harmless? An idle answer at the best, for the origin of spiritual power is and ought to be a real one, and ought not therefore to be used against the civil order ; but worse than idle, because totally untrue, inasmuch as we are now told in the plainest terms (negatively in the Syllabus, affirmatively in Schrader's approved conversion of it),* that the Church is invested with a temporal power direct and indirect, and has authority to employ external coercion. Am I not right in saying that, after all this, to teach the identity of the claims of Vaticanism with those of other forms of Christianity in the great and grave case of conscience against the civil power, is simply to manifest a too thinly veiled contempt for the understanding of the British community, for whose palate and digestion such diet has been offered ? The exact state of the case, as I believe, is this : The right to over-ride all the States of the world and to cancel their acts, within limits assignable from time to time to, but not by those States, and the title to do battle with them, as soon as it may be practicable and expedient, with their own proper weapon and last sanction of exterior force, has been sedulously brought more and more into view of late years. The centre of the operation has lain in the Society of Jesuits ; I am loath to qall them by the sacred name, which ought never to be placed in the painful associations of controversy. In 1870, the fullness of time was come. The matter of the things to be believed and obeyed had been sufficiently developed. But inasmuch as great masses of the Roman Cadiolic body before that time refused either to believe or to obey, in that year the bold stroke was struck, and it was decided to bring mischievous abstrac- tions if possible into the order of still more mischievous realities. The infal- lible, that is virtually the divine title to command, and the absolute, that is the unconditional duty to obey, were promulgated to an astonished world. 3. Alleged Non-interference of the Popes for Two Hundred Years, It has been alleged on this occasion by a British Peer, who I have no doubt has been cruelly misinformed, that the Popes have not invaded the province of the civil power during the last two hundred years. I will not travel over so long a period, but am content even with the last twenty. 1. In his Allocution of the 22d of January, 1855, Pius IX. declared to be absolutely null and void all acts of the Government of Piedmont which he held to be in prejudice of the rights of Religion, the Church, and the Roman See, and particularly a law proposed for the suppression of monastic orders as moral entities, that is to say, as civil corporations. 2. On the 26th of July in the same year, Pius IX. sent forth another Allo- cution, in which he recited various acts of the Government of Spain, including the establishment of toleration for non-Roman worship, and the seculariza- tion of ecclesiastical property ; and, by his own Apostolical authority, he declared all the laws hereto relating to be abrogated, totally null, and of no effect. 3. On the 22d of June, 1862, in another allocution, Pius IX. recited the pro- visions of an Austrian law of the previous December, which established free- Schrader, as above, p. 64. 40 VATICANISM. dom of opinion, of the press, of belief, of conscience, of science, of education, and of religious profession, and which regulated matrimonial jurisdiction and other matters. The whole of these " abominable" laws " have been and shall be totally void, and without all force whatsoever." In all these cases reference is made, in general terms, to Concordats, of which the Pope alleges the violation ; but he never bases his annulment of laws upon this allegation. And Schrader, in his work on the Syllabus, founds his cancellation of the Spanish law, in the matter of toleration, not on the Concordat, but on the original inherent right of the Pope to enforce the 77th Article of the Syllabns, respecting the exclusive establishment of the Roman religion.* To provide, however, against all attempts to take refuge in this specialty, I will now give instances where no question of Concordat enters at all into the case. 1. In an allocution of July 27, 1855, when the law for the suppression of monastic orders and appropriation of their properties had been passed in the kingdom of Sardinia, on the simple ground of his Apostolic authority, the Pope annuls this law, and all other laws injurious to the Church, and excommuni- cates all who had a hand in them. 2. In an Allocution of December 15, 1856, the Pope recites the interrup- tion of negotiations for a Concordat with Mexico, and the various acts of that Government against religion, such as the abolition of the ecclesiastical _/5;rw»/, the secularization of Church property, and the civil permission to members of monastic establishments to withdraw from them. All these laws are declared absolutely null and void. 3. On the 17th of September, 1863, in an Encyclical Letter the Pope enumerates like proceedings on the part of the Government of New Granada. Among the wrongs committed, we find the establishment of freedom of wor- ship {cujusqiie catholici cultus libertas sancitd). These and all other acts against the Church, utterly unjust and impious, the Pope, by his Apostolic authority, declares to be wholly null and void in the future and in the past.t No more, I hope, will be heard of the allegation that for two hundred years the Popes have not attempted to interfere with the Civil Powers of the world. But if it be requisite to carry proof a step farther, this may readily be done. In his Petri Privilegiuvt vol. iii. p. 19, n., Archbishop Manning quotes the Bull In Cccna Domini as if it were still in force. Bishop Clifford in his Pastoral Letter (p. 9.), laid it down that though all human actions were moral actions, there were many of them which belonged to the temporal power, and with which the Pope could not interfere. Among these he mentioned the assessment and payment of taxes. But is it not the fact that this Bull excom- municates " all who impose new taxes, not already provided for by law, with- out the Pope's leave .''" and all who impose, without the said leave,special and express, any taxes, new or old, upon clergymen, churches, or monasteries ?t I may be told that Archbishop Manning is not a safe authority in these matters, that the Bull In Ccena Domini was withdrawn after the assembling of the Council, and the constitution Afiostolicae Sedis^ substituted for it, in which this reference to taxes is omitted. But if this be so, is it not an astonishing fact, with reference to the spirit of Curialism, that down to the year 1870 these preposterous claims of aggression should have been upheld and from time to s; * Schrader, p. 80. t All these citations, down to 1865, will be found in Recueil ties AUociiiiotis Consisioriaies, etc. (Paris, 1865, Adrien Leclerc et C'e ) ; see also Europaische Geschichtskalender, 1868, p. 249 ; Von Schuite, Ponuers 0/ the Roman Popes, vol iv. p. 43 ; Schrader, as above, Heft ii. p. 80 ; Vering, KathoUsches Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1868), Band xx. pp. 170-1, N. F. ; Band xiv. \ O'Keeffe, Ultranwntaiiism, pp. 215, 2ig. The reference is to sections v., xviii. § See Quirinus, p. 105 ; and see Constit. Apostolicx Sedis in Friedbergs' Acta et Decreta Cone. Vitt, p. 77 (Freiburg, 1871). I NATURIi AND CONDITIONS OF* PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 41 iucation, tion and md shall )rdats, of Iment of s, founds on the the 77th ; Roman specialty, all into ession of '^ ed in the the Pope lommuni- intemip- :ts of that al /orutn, mbers of ; declared the Pope Granada, m of wor- )ther acts Apostolic :he past.t hundred ers of the y be done, [uotes the )rd in his ^ere moral lower, and ioned the ill excom- law, with- pecial and teries ?X in these ;mbling of :, in which itonishing 1870 these m time to iloriaies, etc. p. 249 ; Von 80 ; Vering, Oea-eta Cone. time proclaimed? Indeed the new Constitution itself, dated October, 1869, the latest specimen of reform and concession, without making any reservation whatever on behalf of the laws of the several countries, excommunicates (among others) — 1. AH who imprison or prosecute {hostiliter insequentes) Archbishops or Bishops. 2. All who directly or indirectly interfere with any ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion. 3. All who lay hold upon or sequester goods of ecclesiastics held in right of their churches or benefices. 4. All who impede or deter the officers of the Holy Office of the Inquisi- tion in the execution of theif duties. » 5. All who secularize or become owners of Church property without the permission of the Pope. VIII. On the Intrinsic Nature and Conditions of the Papal -Infallibility decreed in the Vatican Council. I have now, I think, dealt sufficiently, though at greater length than I could have wished, with the two allegations, first, that the Decrees of 1870 made no difference in the liabilities of Roman Catholics with regard to their civil allegiance ; secondly, that the rules of their Church allow them to pay an allegiance no more divided than that of other citizens, and that the claims of Ultramontanism, as against the Civil Power, are the very same with those which are advanced by Christian communions and persons generally, I had an unfeigned anxiety to avoid all discussion of the Decree of Infalli- bility on its own, the religious ground ; but as matters have gone so far, it may perhaps be allowed me now to say a few words upon the nature of the extraordinary tenet which the Bishops of one half the Christian world have now placed upon a level with the Apostles' Creed. The name of Popery, which has formerly imposed ad invidiam by heated antagonists, and justly resented by Roman Catholics,* appears now to be perhaps the only name which describes, at once with point and with accuracy, the religion promuijjated from the Vatican in 1870. The change made was immense. Bishop J'hirlwall, one of the ablest English writers of our time, and one imbued almost beyond any other with what the Germans eulogize as the historic mind, said in his Charge of 1872, that the promulgation of the new Dogma, which had occurred since his last meeting with his clergy, was " an event far more important than the great change in the balance of power which we have witnessed during the same interval."t The effect of it, described with literal rigor, was in the last resort to place the entire Christian religion in the breast of the Pope, and to suspena it on his will. This is a startling statement ; but as it invites, so it will bear examination. I put it forth not as rhetoric, sarcasm, or invective ; but as fact, made good by history. It is obvious to reply that, if the Christian religion is in the heart of the Pope, so the law of England is in the heart of the Legislature. The case of the Pope and the case of the Legislature are the same in this : that neither of them are subject to any limitation whatever, except such as they shall them- selves respectively allow. Here the resemblance begins and ends. The nation is ruled by a Legislature, of which by far the most powerful branch is freely chosen, from time to time, by the community itself, by the greater part I' \ ■■■ i ii * Pttri PriviUgium, part ii. pp. 71-91. t Charge of the Bishop of St. David's 1872, p. 2. 42 VATICANISM. N, of the heads of famihes in the country ; and all the proceedings of its Par- !iament are not only carried on in the face of day, but made known from day to day, almost from hour to hour, in every town and village, and almost in every household of "he land. They are governed by rules framed to secure both ample time for consideration and the utmost freedom, or, it may be, even license of debate ; and all that is said and done is subjected to an immediate, sharp, and incessant criticism ; with the assurance on the part of the critics that they will have not only favor from their friends, but impunity from their enemies. Erase every one of these propositions, and replace it by its contra- dictory : you will then have a perfect description of the present Government of the Roman Church. The ancient principles of popular election and con- trol, for which room was found in the Apostolic Church under its inspired teachers, and which still subsist in the Christian East, have, by the constant aggressions of Curialism, been in the main effaced, or, where not effaced, reduced to the last stage of practical inanition. We see before us the Pope, the Bishops, the priesthood, and the people. The priests are absolute over the people ; the Bishops over both ; the Pope over all. Each inferior may appeal against his superior; but he appeals to a tribunal which is secret, which is irresponsible, which he has no share, direct or indirect, in constituting, and no means, however remote, of controlling ; and which, during all the long centuries of its existence, but especially during the latest of them, has had for its cardinal rule this — that all its judgments should be given in the sense most calculated to build up priestly power as against the people, episcopal power as against the priests. Papal power as against all three. The mere utterances of the central See are laws ; and they override at will all other laws ; and if they concern faith or morals, or the discipline of the Church, they are entitled, from all persons without exception, singly or collectively, to an obedience without qualification. Over these utterances — in their preparation as well as after their issue — no man has lawful control. They may be the best, or the worst ; the most deliberate or the most precipitate ; as no man can restrain, as no man has knowledge of, what is done or meditated. The prompters are unkhown ; the consultees are unknown ; the procedure is unknown. Not that there are not officers, and rules ; but the officers may at will be overrid- den or superseded, and the rules at will, and without notice, altered pro re nata and annulled. To secure rights has been, and is, the aim of the Christian civilization ; to destroy them, and to establish the resistless, do- mineering action of a purely central power, is the aim of the Roman policy. Too much and too long, in other times, was this its tendency ; but what was its besetting sin has now become, as far as man can make it, by the crowning triumph of 1870, its undisguised, unchecked rule of action and law of life. These words, harsh as they may seem, and strange as they must sound, are not the incoherent imaginings of adverse partisanship. The best and greatest of the children of the Roman Church have seen occasion to use the like, with cause less grave than that which now exists and have pointed to the lust of dominion as the source of these enormous mischiefs : , 'Di' oggimai, che la Chiesa di Roma Per confondere in se due reggimenti Cade ndl fango, e se brutta, e la soma.'* " The Church of Rome, Mixing two governments that ill assort, Hath missed her footing, fallen into the mire, And there herself and burden, much defiled." — Cary. Without doubt there is an answer to all this. Publicity, responsibility, restraint, and all the forms of warranty and safeguard, are wanted for a human insttution, but are inapplicable to a "divine teacher," to an inspired Pontiff, to a ■* Dante, J'/ir^ntorio, xiv. 127-29, " living Chrii has been giv He needs ne exception to the matter is inerrancy, w divine attribi No one c; weight of sue dation. If ii gift of reasor from God ; I dulity is pres Is there, t he says " the bility has bee three texts." Kenrick tells Next, "Strer trine, but onl ment ; and, church ;" wl declare the r Peter ; and w distinction of his ministry i Into thret course centui ments, how i himself respe him but by 5 sion speciall) the Apostle o twelve founds twelve Apost Is it not the and to gathei parts ? Ism taries, the gc den of the L' tions of the ' reverent jealc gradually for distortion an However, been conside in the goverr case. Other unreal. For defined doctr only he thinl fectly and ab the very san *Dr. Newm t '■ Concio Abth. vol i. pp. arbitrary constri NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 43 " living Christ." The promises, of God are sure and fail not. His promise has been given, and Peter in his Successor shall never fail, never go astray. He needs neither check nor aid, as he will find them for himself. He is an exception to all the rules which determine human action ; and his action in the matter is not really human, but divine. Having, then, the divine gift of inerrancy, why may he not be invested with the title, and assume the divine attribute, of omnipotence ? No one can deny that the answer is sufficient, if only it be true. But the weight of such a superstructure requires a firm, broad, well-ascertained foun- dation. If it can be shown to exist, so far so good. In the due use of the gift of reason with which our nature is endowed, we may look for a blessing from God ; but the abandonment of reason is credulity, and the habit of cre- dulity is presumption. Is there, then, such a foundation disclosed to us by Dr. Newman* when he says " the long history of the contest for and against the Pope's infalli- bility has been but a growing insight through centuries into the meaning of three texts." First, " Feed my sheep" (John xxi. 15-17) ; of which Archbishop Kenrick tells us that the very words are disputed and the meaning forced.t Next, " Strengthen thy brethren ;" which has no reference whatever to doc- trine, but only, if its force extend beyond the immediate occasion, to govern- ment ; and, finally, " Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ;" when it is notorious that the large majority of the early expositors declare the rock to be not the person but the previous confession of Saint Peter ; and where it is plain that, if his person be really meant, there is no distinction of ex cathedra and not ex cathedra, but the entire proceedings of his ministry are included without distinction. Into three texts, then, it seems the Church of Rome has at length, in the course centuries acquired this deep insight. In the study of these three frag- ments, how much else has she forgotten ; the total ignorance of St. Peter himself respecting his " monarchy ;" the exercise of the defining office not by him but by St. James in the Council of Jerusalem ; the world-wide commis- sion specially and directly given to St. Paul ; the correction of St. Peter by the Apostle of the Gentiles ; the independent action of all the Apostles ; the twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, "and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. xxi. 14). But let us take a wider ground. Is it not the function of the Church to study the Divine Word as a whole, and to gather into the foci of her teachings the rays that proceed from all its parts ? Is not this narrow, sterile, wilful textualism the favorite resort of sec- taries, the general charter of all license and self-will that lays waste the gar- den of the Lord ? Is it not this that destroys the largeness and fair propor- tions of the Truth, squeezing here and stretching there, substituting for the reverent jealousy of a faithful guardianship the ambitious aims of a class, and gradually forcing the heavenly pattern into harder and still harder forms of distortion and caricature .-' However, it must be observed that the transcendental answer we have been considering, which sets at naught all the analogies of God's Providence in the government of the world, is the only answer of a breadth equal to the case. Other replies, which have been attempted, are perfectly hollow and unreal. For instance, we are told that the Pope can not alter the already defined doctrines of the Faith. To this I reply, let him alter them as he will, if only he thinks fit to say that he does not alter them, his followers are per- fectly and absolutely helpless. For if they allege alteration and innovation, the very same language will be available against them which has been used * Dr. Newman, p. no. t '• Concio habeudn at uoiii habitn, i. ii. Yr\^(Sx\c\\,Docu7iienta ad illustrandum, Cone. I'at. Ahth. vol i. pp. 191, 199, I leave it to those better entitled and better tjualitied to criticise the purely iirbitrary construction attached to the words. i. 44 VATICANISM. against the men that have had faith and courage given them to protest against alteration and innovation now. " Most impious are you, in charging on us that which, as you know, we can not do. We have not altered, we have only defined. What the Church believed implicitly heretofore, she believes implicitly hereafter. Do not appeal to reason ; ,hat is rationalism. Do not appeal to Scripture ; that is heresy. Do not appeal to history ; that is pri- vate judgment. Over all these things I am judge, not you. If you tell me that 1 require you to affirm to-day, under an anthema, what yesterday you were allowed or encouraged to deny, my answer is that in and by me alone you have any means of knowing what it is you affirm, or what it is you deny." This is the strain which is consistently held by the bold trumpeters of Vati- canism, and which has been effectual to intimidate the feeble-minded and faint-hearted, who seemed to have formed, at the Council of the Vatican, so large a proportion of its opponents ; nay, which has convinced them, or has penormed in them the inscrutable process, be it what it may, which is the Roman substitute for conviction, that what in the Council itself they de- nounced as breach of faith, after the Council they are permitted, nay, bound, to embrace, nay to enforce. Let me now refer to another of these fantastic replies. We are told it would be an entire mistake to confound this Infallibility ot the Pope, in the province assigned to it, with absolutism : " The Pope is bound by the moral and divine law, by the commandments of God, by the rules of the Gospel, and by every definition in faith and morals that the Church has ever made. No man is mo'-e bound by law than the Pope ; a fact plainly known to himself, and to every bishop and priest in Christendom."* Every definition in faith and morals ! These are written definitions. What are they but another Scripture ? What right of interpreting this other Scripture is granted to the Church at large, more than of the real and greater Scripture. Here is surely in its perfection the petition for bread answered by the gilt of a stone. Bishop Vaughan does not venture to assert that the Pope i& bound by the canon law, the written law of the Church of Rome. The abolition of the French Sees, under the Concordat with Napoleon, and the deposition of their legitimate Bishops, even if it were the only instance, has settled that question forever. Over the written law of his Church the pleasure of the Pope is supreme. And this justifies, for every practical purpose, the assertion that law no longer exists in that Church ; in the same very real sense that we should say there was no law in England in the reign of James the Second, while it was subject to a dispensing power. There exists no law wherever a living ruler, an executive head, claims and exercises, and is allowed to possess, a power of annulling or a power of dispensing with the law. If Bishop Vaughan does not know this, I am sorry to say he does not know the first lesson that every English citizen should learn ; he has yet to pass through the lispings of civil childhood. This exemption of the individual, be he who he may, from the restraints of the law is the very thing that in Eng- land we term absolutism. By absolutism we mean the superiority of a personal will to law, for the purpose of putting aside or changing law. Now that power is precisely what the Pope possesses. First, because he is infalli- ble in faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, and he himself is the final judge which of his utterances shall be utterances ex cathedra. He has only to use the words, " I, ex cathedra, declare ;" or the words, " I, in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of my supreme Apostolic authority, define as a doctrine regarding faith or Bishop Vaughan, Pastoral Letter, p. 30, morals, to.be ' be they what 1 every Roman their theologi( Apostles' Cree by his own wi It is futile near him, whc tical as to the methodize, tra In them it liv here their roo mant tells us not what the whether, in B is so wise anc law. On this is not the que It can no tion is contra case of the C supposed — th tell you that 1 you have see and you reti ready : That private judgr down. My \ the judgment whole Christ breast of one decide, throu sary to remii it is ; it does point to obse I have nowh was formerl) governing be sense of the sion, mellow^ all — of what Christian re Saviour in tl and distribut the name of Idle, thei and divine ] and if more Olympus, ar idea, it woul by himself, i does not cor is one whit I and divine 1 r * Vatictxn . t Dr. New NATURE AND CONDITIONS OK PAPAL INFALLIIULITY. 45 morals, to, be held by the Universal Church,"* ajid all words that may follow, be they what they may, must now and hereafter be as -absolutely accepted by every Roman Catholic who takes the Vatican for his veacher, with what in their theological language they call a divine faith, as must any article of- the Apostles' Creed. And what words they are to be that may follow, the Pope by his own will and motion is the sole judge. It is futile to say the Pope has the Jesuits and other admirable advisers near him, whom he will always consult. I am bound to add that I am scep- tical as to the excellence of these advisers. These are the men who cherish, methodize, transmit, and exaggerate all the dangerous traditions of the Curia. In them it lives. The ambition and self-seeking of the Court of Rome have here their root. They seem to supply that Roman malaria which Dr. New- mant tells us encircles the base of the rock of St. Peter. But the question is not what the Pope will do ; it is what he can do, what he has power to do ; whether, in Bishop Vaughan's language, he is bound by law ; not whether he is so wise and well-advised that it is perfectly safe to leave him not bound by law. On this latter question there may be a great conflict of opinions ; but it is not the question before us. It can not be pleaded against him, were it ever so clear, that his declara- tion is contrary to t}ie declaration of some other Popes. For here, as in the case of the Christian Creed, he may tell you — always speaking in the manner supposed — that that other Pope was not speaking ex cathedra. Or hf may tell you that there is no contrariety. If you have read, if you have stuaied, if you have seen, if you have humbly used every means of getting to the truth, and you return to your point that contrariety there is, again his answer is ready : That assertion of yours is simply your private judgment ; and your private judgment is just what my infallibility is meant and appointed to put down. My word is the tradition of the Church. It is the nod of Zeus ; it is the judgment of the Eternal. There is no escaping it, and no disguising it : the whole Christian religion, according to the modern Church of Rome, is in the breast of one man. The will and arbitrament of one man will for the future decide, through half ll.d Christian world, what religion is to be. It is unneces- sary to remind me that this power is limited to faith and morals. We know it is ; it does not extend to geometry, or to numbers. Equally is it beside the point to observe that the infallibility alleged has not received a new definition : I have nowhere said it had. It is the old gift : it is newly lodged. Whatever was formerly ascribed either to the Pope, or to the Council, or to the entire governing body of the Church, or to the Church general and diffused, the final sense of the great Christian community, aided by authority, tested by discus- sion, mellowed and ripened by time — all — no more than all, and no less than all — of what God gave, for guidance, through the power of truth, by the Christian revelation, co the whole redeemed family, the baptised flock of the Saviour in the world ; all this is now locked in the breast of one man, opened and distributed at his will, and liable to assume whatever form — whether under the name of identity or other name it matters not— he may think fit to give it. Idle, then, it is to tell us, finally, that the Pope is bound " by the moral and divine law, by the commandments of God, by the rules of the Gospel ;" and if more verbiage and repetition could be piled up, as Ossa was set upon Olympus, and Pelion upon Ossa, to cover the poverty and irrelevancy of the idea, it would not mend the matter. For of these, one and all, the Pope himself, by himself, is the judge without appeal. If he consults, it is by his will ; if he does not consult, no man call him to account. No man, or assemblage of men, is one whit the less bound to hear and to obey. He is the judge of the moral and divine law, of the (Gospel, and of the commandments ; the supreme and * Vatican Degrees, chap. iil. + Dr. Newman, p. 94. 46 VATICANISM. only final judge ; and he is the judge, with no legislature to correct his errors, with no authoritative rules to guide his proceedings ; with no power on earth to question the force, or intercept the effect, of his decisions. It is indeed said by Dr. Newman, and by others, that this infallibility is not inspiration. On such a statement I have two remarks to make. First, that we have this assurance on the strength only of his own private judgment ; secondly, that if bidden by the self-assertion of the Pope, he will be required by his principles to retract it,* and to assert, if occasion should arise, the con- trary ; thirdly, that he lives under a system of development, through which somebody's private opinion of to-day may become matter of faith for all the to-morrows of the future. What kind and class of private opinions are they that are most likely to find favor with the \'atican ? History, the history of well-nigh eighteen cen- turies, supplies the answer, and supplies it with almost the rigor of a mathe- matical formula. (.)n every contested question, that opinion finds ultimate assent at Rome which more exalts the power of Rome. Have no Popes claimed this inspiration, which Dr. Newman so reasonably denies? Was it claimed by Clement XI. for the Bull Unigenitus? Was it claimed by Gregory the Second in a judgment in which he authorized ji man, who had an invalid wife, to quit her and to marry another.'' Is it or is it not claimed by the present Pope, who says he has a higher title to admonish the (Govern- ments of Europe than the Prophet Nathan had to admonish David .-"t Shall we be told that these are his utterances only as a private doctor .-* But we also learn from Papal divines, and indeed the nature of the case makes it evident, that the non-infallible declarations of the Pope are still declarations of very high authority. Again, is it not the fact that, since 1870, many bishops, Ger- man, Italian, French, have ascribed inspiration to the Pope? Opinions dis- persed here and there were, in the cases of the Immaculate Conception, and of the Absolute Supremacy and the Infallibility ex cathedra, gathered up, declared to constitute -a concensus ot the Church, and made the groundwork of new Articles of Faith. Why should not this be done hereafter in the case of Papal inspiration.'' It is but a mild onward step, in comparison with the strides already made. Those who cried " magnificent" on the last occasion, will cry it again on the next. Dr. Newman and the minimizing divines would, perhaps, reply, "No: it is impossible." But this was the very assurance which, not a single and half-recognized divine* but the whole synod of Irish prelates gave to the British Government in 18 10, and which the Council of the Vatican has authoritatively falsified. Now, let us look a little more closely at this astonishing gift of Infallibility, and its almost equally astonishing, because arbitrary, limitations. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. The gift, we are told, has sub- sisted for 1800 years. When was the discriminating phrase invented? Was it after Christendom had done without it for one thousand six hundred years that this limiting formula of such vital moment was discovered ? Do we owe its currency and prominence — with so much eise of ill omen — to the Jesuits ? Before this, if we had not the name, had we the thing ? Dr. Newman, indeed, finds for it a very ancient extraction. He says the Jewish doctors taught ex cathedra, and our Saviour enjoined that they should be obeyed. Surely there could not be a more c^ilamitous illustration. Ob- serve the terms of the incoherent proposition. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in the cathedra of Moses : " all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.''t The Pope sits in the cathedra of Peter : not all therefore but only a very limited part of what * Dr. Newman, pp. gg, 131. + Discord di Pio IX. vol. p. 366, on Ahircli ;, 1872, \ St. RLitt. xxiii, 2. he enjoins well-defin " matters of action.' he must a Peter, in does not f much que believed t the entire cathedra : was no B tion for o began wit pression s for half 01 office, anc from the ages, first character, in the con Ttie dt main-stay existence ages, the dous conti most ardu of thoughi ances of t ments, no begun in ( Sovereign will bring Yet on craving af and verse, healthines ever, be gi of human its doubts the morni trials. A scrutiny o imaginatic is surely r honestly should stn teaching, final and Providenc of books. Scripture nizing vig * Newm; t Ibici., X Ibid., 1 § Ibid , his errors, • on earth nihility is ce. First, judgment ; e required e, the con- igh which for all the t likely to iteen cen- f a mathe- s uUimate no Popes ? Was it laimed by , who had 3t claimed e (lovern- i?t Shall 3ut we also it evident, ns of very hops, Ger- inions dis- jption, and thered up, round work in the case n with the occasion, ines would, assurance synod of he Council nfallibility, The Pope d, has sub- ted ? Was dred years Do we owe he Jesuits ? le says the hey should ition. Ob- // therefore ope sits in irt of what I NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 47 he enjoins, you are to accept and follow. Only what he says under lour well-defined conditions.* Only, writes Dr. Newman, when he speaks in " matters speculative,"! and " bears upon the domain of thought, not directly of action."! Let us look again to our four conditions ; one of them is that he must address the entire Church. It is singular, to say no more, that St. Peter, in his first Epistle, which has always been unquestioned Scripture, does not address the entire Church ; but in his second, which was for a time much questioned, he does. It is mu9h more singular that the early ages are believed to afford no example whatever of a Papal judgment addressed to the entire Church. So that it is easy to say that Honorius did not speak ex cathedra ; for no Pope spoke ^r cathedra. It is even held by some that there was no Bull or other declaration of a Pope corresponding with this condi- tion for one thousand three hundred years ; and that the unhappy series began with Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII. But how is it beyond all ex- pression strange that for one thousand three hundred years, or were it but for half one thousand three hundred years, the Church performed her high office, and spread over the nations, without any infallible teaching whatever from the Pope, and then that it should have been reserved for these later ages, first to bring into exercise a gift so entirely new, without example in its character, and on the presence or absence of which depends a vital difference in the conditions of Church life t Ttie declarations of the Pope ex cathedra are to be the sure guide and main-stay of the Church ; and yet she has passed through two-thirds of her existence without once reverting to it ! Nor is this all. For in those earlier ages, the fourth century in particular, were raised and settled those tremen- dous controversies relating to the Godhead, the decision of which was the most arduous work the Church has ever been called to perform in the sphere of thought. This vast work she went through without the infallible utter- ances of the Pope, nay at three several times in opposition to Papal judg- ments, now determined to have been heretical. Are more utterances now begun in order to sustain the miserable argument for forcing his Temporal Sovereignty on a people whom nothing but the violence of foreign arms will bring or keep beneath it ? Yet one more point of suggestion. There are those who think that the craving after an infallibility which is to speak from human lips, in chapter and verse, upon each question as it arises, is not a sign of the strength and healthiness of faith, but of the diseased avidity of its weakness. Let it, how- ever, be granted, for the sake of argument, that it is a comfort to the infirmity of human nature thus to attain promptly to clear and intelligible solutions of its doubts, instead of waiting on the divine pleasure, as those who watch for the morning, to receive the supplies required by its intellectual and its moral trials. A recommendation of this kind, however little it may endure the scrutiny of philosophic reflection, may probobly have a great power over the imagination and the affections, {affecttis) of mankind. For this, however, it is surely required that by the ordinary faculties of mankind, rationally and honestly used, these infallible decisions should be discernible, and that they should stand severed from the general mass of promiscuous and ambiguous teaching. Even so it was that, when Holy Scripture was appointed to be of final and supreme authority, provision was also made by the wisdom of Providence for the early collection of the New Testament into a single series of books, so that even we lay persons are allowed to know so far what is Scripture and what is not, without having to resort to the aid of the "scruti- nizing vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the Schola Theologorutn"^ But * Newman, p. 115. t Ibid., p. 127. X Ibid., p. 127. ' . § Ibid , p. 121. il i 'i 48 VATICANISM. let not the Papal Christian imagine that he is to have a like advantage in easily understanding what are the Papal Decrees, which for him form part uf the unerring revelation of God. It would even be presumptuous in him to have an opinion on the point. The divine word of Scripture was invested with a power to feed and refresh. " He shall feed mc in a green pasture ; and lead me forth beside the waters of comfort.'"* And, by the blessing and mercy of Ood, straight and open is the access to them. In no part of the Church of Christ, except the Roman, is it jealously obstructed by ecclesias- tical authority ; and even there the line of the sacred precinct is at least perfectly defined. But now we are introduced to a new code, dealing with the same high subject-matter, and possessed of the same transcendant pre- rogative of certain and unchanging truth : but what are the chapters of that code nobody knows except the Schola Theologorum. Is, for example, the private Christian less humbly desirous to know whether he is oris not to rely absolutely on the declarations of the Syllabus as to the many and great mat- ters which it touches ? No one can tell him. Bishop Fessler (approved by the Pope) says so. He admits that he for one does not know. It seems doubtful whether he thought that the Pope himself knew. For instead of asking the Pope, he promises that it shall be made the subject of long inquiry by the Schola Theologorum. Ce sera tout (Vabord a la science theologique que ^itnposera le devoir de rechercher les diverses raisons qui militent en faveur dcs diverses opinions sur cettc juestion.^ But when the inquiry has ended, and the result has been declared, is he much better off? I doubt it. For the declaration need not then be a final one. " Instances," says Dr. Newman, " frequently occur when it is successfully maintained by some new writei that the Pope's act does not imply what it has seemed to imply ; and questions which seemed to be closed are after a course of years re-opened.":|: It does not appear whether there is any limit to this " course of years." But whether there is or is not, one thing is clear : Between the solid ground, the terra firma of Infallibility, and the quaking, fluctuating mind of the indi- vidual, which seeks to find repose upon it, there is an interval over which he can not cross. Decrees ex cathedra are infallible ; but determinations what decrees are ex cathedra are fallible ; so that the private person, after he has with all docility handed over his m-nd and its freedom to the Schola Theolo- gorum, can never certainly know, never know with " divine faith," when he is on the rock of infallibility, when on the shifting quicksands of a merely human persuasion. Dr. Newman§ will perhaps no ' be able to judge the reason which led me to say, " There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase ex ca- thedra." By a definition I understand something calculated to bring the true nature of the thing defined nearer to the rational apprehension of those who seek to understand it ; not a volume of words in themselves obscure, only pliable to the professional interest of Curialism, and certainly well calculated to find further employment for its leisure, and fresh means of holding in dependence on its will an unsuspecting laity. But all that has been said is but a slight sample of the strange aspects and portentous results of the newly discovered articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesioe. ' i: • * Psalm xxiii. 2. t " I'raie ct/ausse In/aillibiliU das Pajtes" p. S. Angl. : " It will at once become the duty of theological science to examine into the various reasons which go to support each of the yarious opinions on that question." t Dr. Newman, p. 121. g Ibid , p. 107. I have ample pro< 1. Thai of the Vati 2. Thai have been have been 3. Thai allegiance 4. Thai on the assi not becom( due to the I need less cssent The api belief in re *' Defend," though yoi as the Rev threaten h( nay, is pari if possible, publication nock, and the Church to teach, tl Archbisho] twenty yea gating thei There this argui amount to nation of sacred the held, by g Vatican, makes th( Roman Cj in that sei Manning, assert, tha conformit) science' ss but to cal an unsoun cillors of chair," to ing to Ar * Forja t Dublh. \ Archbi J> Archbi ! [49l CONCLUSION. .' 1 have now, at greater length than I could have wished, but I think with ample proof, justified the following assertions : 1. That the position of Roman Catholics has been altered by the Decrees of the Vatican on Papal InfallibiUtv, .ind on obedience to the Pope. 2. That the extreme claims of the Middle Ages have been sanctioned, and have been revived, without the warrant or excuse which might in those ages have been shown for them. 3. That the claims asserted by the Pope arc such as to place civil allegiance at his mercy. 4. That the State and people of the United Kingdom had a right to rely on the assurances they had received that Papal infallibilitv was not, and could not become, an article of faith in the Roman Church, and that the obedience due to the Pope was limited by laws independent of his will. I need not any more refer to others of my assertions, more general, or less essential to the main argument. The appeal of the Dublin Revieio* for union on the basis of common belief in resisting unbelief, which ought to be strong, is unhappily very weak. ^* Defend," says the Reviewer, " the ark of salvation precious to us both, though you have an i\ 'erest (so to speak) in only a part of the cargo." But as the Reviewer himself is deck-loading the vessel in such a manner as to threaten her foundering, to stop his very active proceedings is not opposed to, nay, is part of, the duty of caring for the safety of the vessel. But weaker still, if possible, is the appeal which Archbishop Manning has made against my publication, as one which endeavours to create religious divisions among his flock, and instigate them to rise against the authority of the Church. For if the Church of England, of which I am a member, is, as she has never ceased to teach, the ancient, lawful, Catholic Church of this country, it is rather Archbishop Manning than I that may be charged with creating, for the last twenty years and more, religious divisions among our countrymen, and insti- gating them to rise against that ancient, lawful, and mild authority. There may be, and probably are, great faults in my manner of conducting this argument. But the claim of Ultramontanism among us seems to amount to this : that there shall be no free, and therefore no effectual exami- nation of the Vatican Decrees, because they are the words of a Father, and sacred therefore in the eyes of his affectionate children.t It is deliberately held, by grave and serious men, that my construing the Decrees of the Vatican, not arbitrary, but with argument and proof, in a manner which makes them adverse to civil duty, is an " insult " and an outrage to the Roman Catholic body, which I have nowhere charged with accepting their* in that sense. Yet a far greater license has been assumed by Archbishop Manning, who, without any attempt at proof at all, suggests,t if he does not assert, that the allegiance of the masses of the English people is an inert conformity and a passive compliance, given really for wrath and not for con- science' sake. This opinion is, in my judgment, most untrue, must unjust ; but to call even this an insult would be an act of folly, betokening, as I think, an unsound and unmanly habit of mind. Again, to call the unseen coun- cillors of the Pope myrmidons, to speak of " aiders and abettort, of the Papal chair," to call Rome " headquarters," these and like phrases amount, accord- ing to Archbishop Manning,§ to "■ an indulgence of unchastened language * For Jan., 1875. t Dublin Review, Jan., 1875, p. i Archbishop Manning, p. 345. i Archbishop M.inning, p. 177. 4 I'll I. VATICANISM. rarclv to be etiuallecl." I frankly own that this is in my eyes irrational. Not that It is agreeable to me to employ even this far from immoderate lilierty of controversial language. I would rather pay an unbroken reverence to all ministers of religion, and especially to one who tills the greatest See of Christ- endom. But 1 see this great personage, under ill advice, aiming heavy and, as far as he can make them so, deadly blows at the freedom of mankind, and therein not only at the structure of society, but at the very constitution of our nature, and the high designs of Providence for trying and training it. I can not under the restraints of courtly phrase convey any adequate idea of such tremendous mischiefs ; for in proportion as the power is venerable, the abuse of it is pernicious. 1 am driven to the conclusion that this sensitive- ness is at tne best but morbid. The cause of it may be, that for the last thirty years, in this country at least, Ultramontanism has been very busy in making controversial war upon other people, with singularly little restraint of tanguage ; and has had far too little of the truth told to itself. Hence it has lost the habit, almost the idea, of equal laws in discussion. Of that system as a system, especially after the further review of it which it has been my duty to make, I must say that its influence is adverse to freedom in the State, the family, and the individual ; that when weak it is too often crafty, and when strong tyrannical ; and that, though in this country no one could fairly deny to its professors the credit of doing what they think is for the glory of God, they exhibit in a notable degree the vast self-deluding forces which make sport of our common nature. The great instrument to which they look for the promotion of Christianity seems to be an unmeasured exal- lation of the clerical class and of its power, as against all that is secular and lay, an exhaltation not less unhealthy for that order itself than for society at large. There are those who think, without being mere worshippers of Luther, that he saved the Church of Rome by alarming it, when its Popes, Cardinals, and Prelates were carrying it "down a steep place into the sea;" and it may be that those who, even if too roughly, challenge the proceedings of the Vatican, are better promoting its interests than such as court its favours, and hang upon its lips. I am concerned, however, to say that in the quick resentment which has been directed against clearness and strength of language, I seem to perceive not simply a natural sensitiveness, but a great deal of controversial strata- gem. The purpose of my pamphlet was to show that the directors of the Roman Church had in the Council of the Vatican committed a gross offence against civil authority, and against civil freedom. The aim of most of those who have professionally replied to me seems to have been at all hazards to establish it in the minds of their flocks, that whatever is said against their high clerical superiors is said against them, although they had nothing to do with the Decrees, or with the choice or appointment of the exalted persons who framed and passed them. But this proposition, if stated calmly as part of an argument, will not bear a moment's examination. Consequently, it has been boldly held that this drawing of distinctions between pastors and the flock, because the one made the Decrees and the other did not, is an insult and an outrage to all alike ;* and by this appeal passion is stirred up to darken counsel and obscure the case. I am aware that this is no slight matter, and I have acted under a sense of no trivial responsibility. Rarely in the complicated combination of politics, when holding a high place in the councils of my Sovereign, and when error was commonly visited by some form of sharp and speedy retribution, have I felt that sense as keenly. At any rate, I may and must say that all the words answer for If any of hostilit) we feel tow and the pr communioi with a mc it as that p been cast- ever its m imperfectic according according walfare of Whether t Unreforme them, whic affections j seems to r will say, a entertainec worse in t and which Church wh like and st of Colet, a Quesnel ; would den self-abasec ■ tants by p No im respect an( middle pet present cei consistenc formation, preciate th sore disad friendly, establishm laws, and relief were too well, characteri was learne In disc to keep fc * I withhold the references— they are numerous, although by no means universal ; and having said so much of the extreme doctrines of Archbishop Manning, 1 have pleasure in observing that he does not adopt this langu.ige. * Dante, t /En. CONCLUSION. 5' ihe words of these Tracts were written as by one who knows that he must answer for them to a Power hijjher than that of public opinion. If any motive connected with rclijjion helped to sway me, it was not one of hostility, but the reverse. My hostility, at least, was the sentiment which we feel toward faults which mar the excellences, which even destroy tho hope and the promise of those who are fain to love. Attached to my own religious communion, the Church of my birth and my country, I have never loved it with a merely sectional or insular attachment, but have thankfully regarded it as that portion of the great redeemed Christian family in which mv lot had been cast— not by, but for me. In every other portion of that family, what- ever its name, whatever its extent, whatever its perfections, or whatever its imperfections, I have sought to feel a kindly interest, varying in its degree according to the likeness it seemed to bear to the heavenly pattern, and according to the capacity it seemed to possess to minister to the health and walfare of the whole. I " Le frondi, ondc H'imponda tutto I'orto ,, iJel Ortolano Kterno, am' io cotanto ., ,. ., , ., Qu?n(o da Lui in lor di bene e porto."* " The leaves, wherewith embowered is all the garden Of the Kternal Gnrdener, do I love As much as He has granteo them of gooA."~Long/ell(m>. Whether they be Tyrian or Trojan,? Eastern or Western, Reformed or Unreformed, I desire to renoimce and repudiate all which needlessly wounds them, which does them less than justice, which overlooks their place in the affections and the care of the Everlasting Father of us all. Common sense seems to me to teach that doctrine, no less than Christainity. Therefore, I will say, and I trust to the spirit of Charity to interpret me, I have always entertained a warm desire that the better elements might prevail over the worse in that great Latin communion which we call the Church of Rome, and which comprises one-half, or near one-half, of Christendom : for the Church which gave us Thomas a Kempis, and which produced the scholars like and statesman-like mind of Erasmus, the varied and attractive excellence- of Colet, and of More ; for the Church of Pascal and Arnauld, of Nicole and Quesnel ; for the Church of some now living among us, of whom none would deny that they are as humble, as tender, as self-renouncing, and as self-abased— in a word, as Evangelical as the most " Evangelical " of Protes- ■ tants by possibility can be. No impartial student of history can, I think, fail to regard with much respect and some sympathy the body of British Christians which, from the middle period of the reign of Elizabeth down to the earlier portion of the present century, adhered with self-denying fidelity, and with a remarkable consistency of temper and belief, to the Latin communion. I lament its formation, and I can not admit its title-deeds : but justice requires me to ap- preciate the high qualities which it has exhibited and sadly prolonged under sore disadvantage. It was small, and dispersed through a mass far from friendly. It was cut off from the ancient national hierarchy, and the noble establishments of the national religion ; it was severely smitten by the penal laws, and its reasonable aspirations for the measures that would have secured relief were mercilessly thwarted and stifled by those Popes whom they loved too well. Amid all these cruel difficulties, it retained within itself these high characteristics : it was moderate ; it was brave ; it was devout ; it was was learned ; it was loyal. In discussing, however sharply, the Vatican Decrees, I have endeavoured to keep faith ; and I think that honour as well as prudence required me,. * Dante, Paradiso, xxvi. 64-6. t /£«. X. 108. 52, VATICANISM. when offering an appeal upon public and civil grounds, to abstain not only from assailing, but even from questioning in any manner or regard, the Roman Catholic religion, such as it stood before 1870 in its general theory, and such as it actually lived and breathed in England during my own early days, half a century ago. It was to those members of such a body, who still cherish its traditions in consistency as well as in good faith, that I could alone, with any hope of profit, address my appeal. Who are they now ? and how many ? Has what was most noble in them gone the way of all flesh, together with those clergy of 1826 in England and Ireland, who, as Dr. Newman tells us, had been educated in Gallican opinions ? More than thirty years ago, I expressed to a near friend, slightly younger than myself, and in all gifts standing high even among the highest of his day, the deep alarm I had conceived at the probable consequences of those secessions of educated, able, devout, and in some instances most eminent men to the Church of Rome, which had then begun in series, and which con- tinued for about ten years. I had then an apprehension, which after-exper- ience has confirmed in my mind, though to some it may appear a paradox, that nothing would operate so powerfully upon the England of the nineteenth century as a crowd of these secessions — especially if from Oxford — in stimu- lating, strengthening, and extending the negative or destructive spirit in re- ligion. My friend replied to me, that at any rate there would, if the case occurred, be some compensation in the powerful effect which any great English infusion could not fail to have in softening the spirit and modifying the general attitude of the Church of Rome itself. The secessions continued and multiplied. Some years later, the author of this remark himself plunged into the flood of them. How strangely and how sadly has his estimate of their effects been falsified ? They are now seen, and felt as well as seen, to have contributed every where to the progress and to the highest exaggera- tions of Vaticanism, and to have altered in that sense both profoundly and extensively, and by a process which gives no sign of having even now reached its last stage, the complexion of the Anglo-Roman communion. It is hard to recognize the traditions of such a body in the character and action of the Ultramontane policy, or in its influence either upon modera- tion, or upon learning, or upon loyalty, or upon the general peace. I have above hazarded an opinion that in this country it may cause in- convenience ; and I have had materials ready to hand which would, I think, have enabled me amply to prove this assertion. But to enter into these details might inflame the dispute, and I do not see that it is absolutely ne- cessary. My object has been to produce, if possible, a temper of greater watchfulness ; to promote the early and provident fear which, says Mr. Burke, is the mother of necessity ; to distrust that lazy way of thought which acknowledges no danger until it thunders at the doors ; to warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order, and which any one of us may at any time encounter in his daily path. If I am challenged, I must not refuse to say it is not less dangerous, in its ultimate operation on the human mind, to the foundations of that Christian belief, which it loads with false excrescences, and strains even to the bursting. In some of the works to which I am now offering my rejoinder, a protest is raised against this discussion in the name of peace.* I will not speak of the kind of peace which the Roman Propaganda has for the last thirty years been carrying through the private homes of England. But 1 look out into the world ; and I find that now, and in great part since the Vatican Decrees, the Church of Rome, through the Court of Rome and its f Dr. Capel, p 48 : Archbishop Manning, p. r;?. CONCLUSION. S3 Head, the Pope, is in direct feud with Portugal, with Spain, with Germany, with Switzerland, with Austria, with Russia, with Brazil, and with most of South America ; in short, with the far larger part of Christendom. The particulars may be found in, nay, they almost fill, the Speeches, Letters^ Allocutions, of the Pope himself. So notorious are the facts that, according to Archbishop Manning, they are due to a conspiracy of the Governments. He might as reasonably say they were due to the Council of the Amphic- tyons. On one point I must strongly insist. In my Expostulation, I laid stress upon the charge of an intention, on the part of Vaticanism, to promote the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the lope, on the first favor- able opportunity, by foreign arms, and without reference to the wishes of those who were once his people. From Archbishop Manning downward, not so much as one of those who have answered me from the standing-ground of Vaticanism have disavowed this project : many of them have openly professed that they adopt it, and glory in it. Thus my main practical accu- sation is admitted ; and the main motive which prompted me is justified.. I am afraid that the cry for peace in the quarters from which it comes has been the complaint of the foeman scaling the walls against the sentry who gives the alarm. That alarm every man is entitled to give, when the very subject that precipitates the discussion is the performance of duties toward the Crown and State, to which we are all bound in common, and in which the common interest is so close that their non-performance by any one is an injury to all the rest. It may be true that in human things there are ^reat restraining and equalizing powers, which work unseen. It may be true that the men of good systems are worse than their principles, and the men of bad systems better than their principles, but, speaking of systems, and not of men, I am con- vinced that the time has come when religion itself requires a vigorous^ protest against this kind of religionism. I am not one of those who find or imagine a hopeless hostility between authority and reason ; or who undervalue the vital moment of Christianity to mankind. I believe that religion to be the determining condition of our well or ill being, and its Church to have been and to be, in its several organisms,, by far the greatest institution the world has ever seen. The poles on which the dispensation rests are truth and freedom. Between this there is a holy, a divine union ; and he that impairs or impugns either is alike the enemy of both . To tear or to beguile away from man the attribute of inward liberty, is not only idle, I would almost say it is impious. When the Christian scheme first went forth, with all its authority, to regenerate the world, it did not discourage, but invited, the free action of the human reason and the indi- vidual conscience, while it supplied these agents from within with the rules and motives of a humble, which was also a noble, self-restraint. The propa- gation of the Gospel was committed to an organized society ; but in the constitution of that society, as we learn alike from Scripture and from his- tory, the rights of all its orders were well distributed and guaranteed. Of these early provisions for a balance of Church power, and for securing the laity against sacerdotal domination, the rigid conservatism of the Eastern Church presents us, even down to the present day, with an authentic and living record. But in the Churches subject to the Pope, clerical power and every doctrine and usage favorable to clerical power, have been developed, and developed, and developed, while all that nurtured freedom, and all that guaranteed it, have been harassed and denounced, cabined and confined, attenuated and starved, with fits and starts of intermitted success and failure, but with a progress on the whole as decisively onward toward its aim as that which some enthusiasts think they see in the natural movement of humanity at large. At last came the crowning stroke of 1870 : the legal extinction of Right, and the enthronement of Will in its place, throughout the churches of 54 VATICANISM. one-half of Christendom. While freedom and its guarantees are thus attacked on one side, a multitude of busy but undisciplined and incoherent assailants, on the other, are making war, some upon Revelation, some upon dogma, some upon Theism itself. Far be it from me to question the integ- rity of either party. But as freedom can never be effectually established by the adversaries of that Gospel which has first made it a reality for all orders and degrees of men, so the Gospel never can be effectually defended by a policy which declines to acknowledge the high place assigned to Liberty in the counsels of Providence, and which, upon the pretext of the abuse that like every 'other good she suffers, expels her from ;ts system. Among the many noble thoughts of Homer, there is not one more noble or more pene- trating than his judgment upon slavery. " On the day," he says, " that makes a bondman of the free," "Wide-seeing Zeus takes half the man away." i . He thus judges, not because the slavery of his time was cruel, for evidently it was not, but because it was slavery. What he said against servitude in the social order we may plead against Vaticanism in the spiritual sphere ; and no cloud of incense, which zeal, or flattery, or even love, can raise, should hide the disastrous truth from the vision of mankind. . ( ', - , ). ■ APPENDICES. ',=ni ;! •• Appendix A (p. 5). «. / ■ The following are the principal Replies from antagonists which I have seen. I have read the whole of them with care ; and I have not knowingly- omitted in this Rejoinder any thing material to the main arguments that they contain. I place them as nearly as I can in chronological order : 1. Rep/y to Mr. Gladstone. By a Monk of St. Augustine's, Ramsgate. Nov. 15, 1874. London. 2. Exfosii 'ation in extremis. By Lord Robert Montagu. London, 1.874. 3. The .'' i^cHtes, Mr. Gladstone^ and the Apostates from the Faith. By ' s. ^! UUathome. Nov. 17, 1874, London. 4. The A,,.„.u.'tation of Desolation. By Rev. J. Coleridge, S.J. Nov. 23. 1874. London. 5. Very Rev. Canon Oakeley, Letters of. Nov. 16 and 27, 1874. In the Times, d. Catholic Allegiance. By Bishop Clifford. Clifton, Nov. 25, 1874. 7. Pastoral Letters. By Bishop Vaughan. Dec. 3, 1874. London. The same, with Appendices, Jan. 1875. 8. Review of Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation, in The Month for Dec. 1874, and Jan. 1875. By Rev. T. B. Parkinson, S. J. 9. External Aspects of the Gladstone Controversy. In The Month of Jan. 1875. 10. An Ultramontane's Reply to Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation. London, 1874- 11. Letter to J. D. Hutchinson, Esq. By Mr. J. Stone Smith. Nov. 29, 1874. In the Halifax Courier of Dec. 5, 1874. 12. Letter to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M. P. By a Scottish Catholic Layman. London, 1874. 13. Reply to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone's Political Expostulation. By Monsignor Capel. London, 1874. 14. A Vindication of the Pope and the Catholic Religion. By Mulhallen Marum, LL. B. Kilkenny, 1874. 15. Catholicity, Liberty, Allegiance, a Disquisition on Mr. Gladstontfs Expostulation. By Rev. John Curry, Jan. i, 1875. London, Dublin, Bradford. 16. Mr. Gladstones Expostulation Unraveled. By Bishop Ullathorne. London, 1875. 17. Sul Tentativo Anticattolico in Inghilterra, eVOpuscolo del On*"" Siq. Gladstone. Di Monsignor Francesco Nardi. Roma, 1875. 18. .^ Letter to his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr, Gladstone's recent Expostulation. By John Henry Newman, D. D., of the Oratory. London, 1875. l'9. The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on Civil Allegiance. By Henry Edward, Archbishop of Westminster. London, 1875. 20, The Dublin Review, An. WW. London, Jan. 1875. 21. The Union Review, Art. I. By Mr. A. P. de Lisle. London, Feb. 1875. ;«w»»i*i»ai!!»,»i(:; 56 VATICANI.SiM. I need not here refer particularly to the significant letters of favorable response which have proceeded from within the Roman Catholic communion, or from those who have been driven out of it by the Vatican Decrees. Appendix B. (p. 8). " I lament not only to read the name, but to trace the arguments of Dr. Von Dbllinger in the pamphlet before me." — Archbishop Manning, Letter to the " Times," Nov. 7, i%y^.~'-^ Vatican Decrees," p. 4. Justice to Dr. Von Dollinger requires me to state that he had no concern, direct or indirect, in the production or publication of the tract, and that he was, until it had gone to press, ignorant of its existence. Had he been a party to it, it could not have failed to be far more worthy of the attenticm it received. Bishop Ullathorne goes further, and says of Dr. Von Dollinger that "he never was a theologian." — Letter, p. 10. Then they have made strange mistakes in Germany. Werner, a writer who I believe is trustworthy, in his Geschichte der Kaiholischen Theologie, 1866, is led by his subject to survey the actual staff, and condition of the Roman Church. He says, p. 470: "Almost for an entire generation, Dr. J. Von Dollinger has been held the most learned theologian of Catholic Germany, and he indisputably counts among the greatest intellectual lights that the Catholic Church of the present age has to show." I cite a still higher authority in Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague. On May 25, 1868, he addressed a letter to Cardinal Antonelli, in which he pointed out that the theologians who had been summoned from Germany to the Council, were all of the same theological school, and that for the treatment of dogmatic matters it was most important that some more profound students of more rich and universal learning, as well as sound in faith, should be called. He goes on to suggest the names of Hefele, Kuhn, and (with a high eulogy) Von Dollinger. The strangest of all is yet behind. Cardinal Antonelli, in his reply dated July 1 5, receives with some favour the suggestion of Cardinal Schwarzenberg, and says that one of the three theologians named would certainly have been invited to the Council, had not the Pope been informed that if invited he would decline to come. That one was Dr. Von Dollinger. I cite the original documents, which will be found in Freidrich's Docu- menta ad illnstrandum Concilium Vaticanum, pp. 277-80. Appendix C. (p. 20). As I have cited Schrader elsewhere, I cite him here also ; simply be- cause he translates (into German) upon a different construction of the Sev- enty-third Articles of the Syllabus from that which I had adopted, and makes a disjunctive proposition out of two statements which appear to be in effect identical. In English, his conversion of the articles runs as follows : " Among Christians no true matrimony can be constituted by virtue of a civil contract ; and it is true that either the marriage contract between Chris- tians is a Sacrament, or that the contract is null when the Sacrament is excluded. " Remark. And, on this very account, is every contract entered into be- tween man and woman, among Christians, without the Sacrament, in virtue of any civil law whatever, nothing else than a shameful and pernicious con- APPENDICES. 57 cubinage, so strongly condemned by the Church ; and therefore the marriage- bond can never be separated from the Sacrament."* The sum of the matter seems to be this. Wherever it has pleased the Pope to proclaim the Tridentine Decrees, civil marriage is concubinage. It is the duty of each concubinary (or party to concubinage), with or without the consent of the other party, to quit that guilty state. And as no law of Church or State binds a concubinary to marriage with the other concubinary,. he (or she) is free so far as the Church of Rome can create the freedom, to marry another person. Appendix D (p. 37.) I do not think myself called upon to reply to the statements which Bishop- Vaughan has siought (Pastoral Letter, pp. 35, 37) to show, that the fear ot civil war ultimately turned the scale in the minds of the chief Ministers of 1829, and led them to propose the Bill for Emancipation. First because the question is not what influences acted at that moment on those particular minds, but how that equilibrium of moral forces in the country had been brought about which made civil war, or something that might be called civil war, a possibility. Secondly, because I am content with the reply provided in the Concio of Archbishop Kenrick, c. viii. See Friedrich's Documenta ad illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum, vol. i. p. 219. The statement would, in truth, only be relevant if they were meant to show that the Roman Catholics of that day were justified in making false statements of their belief in order to obtain civil equahty, but that, as those statements did not avail to concil- iate the Ministers of 1829, they then materially fell back upon the true ones. To show, however, how long a time had to pass before the poison could obtain possession of the body, I point without comment, to the subjoined statement, anonymous, but so far as I know, uncontradicted, and given with> minute particulars, which would have made the exposure of falsehood per- fectly easy. It is taken from the Cornish Telegraph, of Di'cember 9, 1874, and is signed Clericus. It follows a corresponding statement with regard to America, which is completely corroborated by Archbishop Kenrick in his Concio: see Freidrich's Documenta, vol. i. p. 215. " Of a painful alteration in another popular work, Keenan's Controver- sial Catechism (London, Catholic Publishing and Bookselling Company, 53 New Bond Street), I can speak from two gravely differing copies, both professedly of the same edition, now lying before me. This is so singular a case that I venture to give it in a little detail. Keenan's Catechism has been very extensively used in Great Britain and America. In his preface to the third edition, the author speaks of it as "having the high approbation of Archbishop Hughes, the Right Rev. Drs. Kyle and Carruthers ; as well as the approval of the Right Rev. Dr. Gillis, and the Right Rev. Dr. Murdoch." These last-named four ecclesiastics were vicars-apostolic of their respective districts in Scotland, and their separate episcopal approbations are prefixed to the Catechism ; those of Bishops Carruthers and Kyle are dated respect- ively loth and isth of April, 1846 ; those of Bishops Gillis and Murdoch, 14th and 19th of November, 1853. " Thus this work was authenticated by a well-known American archbishop and four British bishops thoroughly familiar with the teaching of their Church, long before Archbishop Manning joined it. Now, at page H2 of one of my copies of the ' new edition, corrected by the author, twenty-fourth thousand,' are the following question and answer : Schrader, Heft ii. p. 79 (Wien, 1865). S8 VATICANISM. Q. — " Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible ?" A. — " This is a Protestant invention ; it is no article of the Catholic faith ; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body — that is, by the Bishops of the Church," " It would be satisfactory if Archbishop Manning would explain how his statement to Mr. Bennett squares with this statement of Keenan's, and with that of the 50 /Reasons." *' But, further, it would be highly satisfactory if Archbishop Manning, or some representative of the * Catholic Publishing and Book-selling Company' would explain how it came to pass that, on the passing of the Vatican decree, apparently while this very edition of Keenan's Catechism was passing through the press, the above crucial question and answer were quietly dropped out, though no intimation whatsoever was given that this vital alteration was made in the remainder of the edition. Had a note been appended, intimat- ing that this change had become needful, no objection, of course, could have been made. But no word has been inserted to announce or explain this omission of so material a passage ; while the utmost pains have been taken, and, I must add, with great success, to pass off this gravely altered book as being identical wit a the rest of the edition. The title-pages of both copies alike profess that it is the * new edition, corrected by the author,' (who was in his grave before the Vatican Council was dreamed of) ; both profess to be the ' twenty -fourth thousand ;' both have the same episcopal approbations and preferences ; both are paged alike throughout ; so that, from title-page to index, both copies are, apparently, identical. I have very often placed both in the hands of friends, and asked if they could detect any difference, but have always found they did not. The Roman Catholic book-sellers, Messrs. Kelly and Messrs. Gill, in Dublin, from whom I purchased a number of copies in August, 1871, were equally unaware of this change ; both be- lieving that the Publishing Company had supplied them with the same book, and both expressed strongly their surprise at finding the change made with- out notice. Another Dublin Roman Catholic book-seller was very indignant at this imposition, and strongly urged me to expose it. It is no accidental slip of the press ; for while all the earliest copies of the edition I bought from Messrs. Kelly contained the question and answer, they were omitted in all the later copies of Messrs. Gill's supply. The omission is very neatly, cleverly made by a sHght widening of the spaces between the questions and answers on page 112 and the beginning of page 113 ; so skillfully managed that nobody would be at all likely to notice the difference in these pages of the two copies, unless he carefully looked, as I did, for the express purpose of seeing if both alike contained this question and answer." Appendix E(p. 37). Extract from " The Catholic Question f addressed to the Freeholders of the County of York on the General Election of 1826, p. 31. " The Catholic religion has three great aeras ; first in its commencement to the Dark Ages ; then from the middle centuries down to the Reformation ; and lastly, from the Reformation to the present day. The Popish religion of the present day has scarcely any resemblance with its middle stage ; its powers, its pretensions, its doctrines, its wealth, and its objects are not the same ; it is a phantom, both in theory and practice, to what it once was ; and yet the bigots draw all their arguments from the Middle Ages, and, passing all the manifest alterations of modern times, set up a cry about the enormi- ties of times long past, and which have been dead and buried these three hundred years. This unjust conduct is just the same as if you were to or APPENDICES. H hang a faithful, tried domestic, who had served you forty years, because he had committed some petty theft when he was a boy. It is the most illiberal and the most unjustifiable mode of arguing, and if applied to the Church of England, would reduce it to a worse case than that of her old rival." The " bigots," who are here charged by the Liberal electors of Yorkshire with reviving mediaeval Romanism, are not Vaticanists, but Protestant bigots, whose sinister predictions the Vaticanists have done, and are doing, their best to verify. Both by reason of the language of this extract, and of its beipg taken out of the actual working armory of one of the great electioneering struggles for the County of York, which then much predominated in importance over every other constituency of the United Kingdom, it is important. It shows by direct evidence how the mitigated professions of the day told, and justly told, on the popular mind of England. Appendix F (p. 43). I. From the Decree. " Et primo declarat, quod ipsa in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, ^concilium generale faciens, et ecclesiam Catholicam repraesentans, potestatem a Christo immediate habet, cui quilibet cujusque status vel dignitatis, etiam si papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his qua pertinent adfidem et extirpa- tionem dicti schismatis, et reformationem dictae ecclesias in capite et in membris." — Cone. Const. Sess. v.; Labbe et Cossart, tom xii. p. 22. II. From the account of the Pope's confirmation. " Quibus sic factis, sanctissimus dominus noster papa dixit, respondendo ad praedicta, quod omnia et singula determinata conclusa et decreta in materiis fidei per praesens concilium, conciliariter tenore et inviolabiliter observare volebat, et nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipsaque sic con- ciliariter facta approbat et ratificat, et non aliter, nee alio modo." — Cone. Const. Sess. xlv.; Labbe et Cossart. tom xii. p. 258. Appendix G (p. 49). Labbe, Coneilia^ x. 11 27, ed. Paris, 1671, Canon II. " Obedite prapositis vestris, et subjaeete illisj ipsi enim previgilant pro animabus vestris, tanquam rationem redditurij Paulus magnus Apostolus praecepit. Itaque beatissimum Papam Nicolaum tanquam organum .Sancti Spiritus habentes,* necnon et sanctissimum Hadrianum Papam, successorem ejus definimus atque sancimus, etiam omnia quas ab eis synodice per diversa tempora exposita sunt et promulgata, tarn pro defensione ae statu Constanti- nopolitanorum ecelesice, et suntmi sacerdotis ejus, Ignatiividelicit, sancttssimi PatriarehcE, quam etiam pro Photii neophyti et invasoris, expulsione ac con- demnatione, servari semper et eustodiri cum expositis capituhs immutilata pariter et illasa" The Canon then goes on to enact penalties. Appendix H (p. 55). It appears to me that Archbishop Manning has completely misappre- hended the history of the settlement of Maryland and the establishment of toleration there for all believers in the Holy Trinity. It was a wise measure. In the Greek, ibid. p. 1167, a}; opyocvov TOV dyi'au IIvsv/itaTOS eX0VTE