Vaticanism: An Answer to Reproofs and Replies

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

1875

^^^^^^^1^1

UoivCTWty ol Michigan

GLADSTONE & SOHAFP

ON THE

VATICAN DECREES.

I > » •

The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance : A Political Expostulation. By
the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. To which are added : A History of the Vatican
Council; The Papal Syllabus of Errors (with English translation); and The Vatican De-
crees Concerning the Catholic Faith and the Church of Christ (with English translation).
By the Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., from his forthcoming work, "The Creeds of Christen-
dom." 8vo, Paper, 60 cents ; Cloth, $1 00.

Glad8toDe*8 article simply calls atteotion to certain
things already known, bat not realized in all their
beating by the public. It proves by the ex cathedra
statements by that line of men who, speaking thus,
can not err, that ** no one possibly can now become a
convert" of Rome "without renouncing his moral
and mental freedom, and placing his civilloyalty and
duty at the mercy of another," that other being the
Pop'e. The chief value of this volume— and it is one
which every person who takes an interest in great
iMues will need for reference— depends on the fact
that it contains, along with Mr. 01ad8tone*8 pamphlet,
the historical documents on which its propositions
are all based. * * * We have also a clear and masterlv
history of the Vatican council, bv Dr. SchaflC; in which
he shows the crafty way in which the minority were
overpowered and silenced, and in which the doctrine
of Infallibility is proved to be destitute of any sanc-
tion in either Scripture or the teachings of the early
Church. • » • We take It for granted that every body
will wish to keep posted In regard to the controversy
now raised in England, and destined to spread to
nearly eveiy country where Romanism has gained a
foothold. The contents of this volume will become
more and more valuable as that controversy increases ;
history is the worst enemy Rome has to contend with.
— Churdiman.

Every reader is enabled to examine the evidence on
which Mr. Gladstone has founded his indictment
against the Papacy. Nothing can be fairer than this.
^Pres8, Phila.

Gladstone's bombshell explosion has shaken the
Christian world. It is not likely that any other
pamphlet has created a greater sensation since the
art of printing was invented. Dr. Schaflf has happily
added to It a iiistory of the Vatican Coimcil and the
Papal Syllabus and Vatican Decrees. Harper &
Brothers have published them together, and we coun-
sel every man toAo can read, to read, mark, and in-
wardly digest them if he can.— Observer.

Gladstone's political firebrand.— Louisi;iae Omrier'
Journal.

It has been said that no work since the Reformation
has stirred the public mind throughout England like
the opening paper in this book from the pen of Mr.
Gladstone.^ * * It ought to be widely read. The work
as published by the Harpers is really in four parts.
Besides Mr. Gladstone's article, there is a valuable
History by Dr. Schaflf, one of the first of historical
writers, of the so-called (Ecumenical or Vatican Coun-
cil ; and then, first, the Papal Syllabus of Errors, and
second, the Vatican Decrees ; and, as a whole, is a
work which ought to be scattered every where
throughout our land, and thoughtfully read and cou-
siderM by all the people. It has most pregnant sig-
niflcancy.— 3%e ChriMoan Itutruetor, Pliila.

Mr. Gladstone's paper on the Vatican Decrees
arouses a storm ; and the Papal world, from Pope to
priest, is in a ferment of vexation. All the more so
in that Gladstone proves, by clear and Aill citationt*,
all his damaging accusations. He has cleared the
atmosphere, and Popery is, at least for the time,
weaker. Thanks are due the Harpers for putting this
second-named paper in large type and on an octavo
page, along with Dr. Schaff*s elaborate and learned
"History of the Vatican Council." Ultramontauism
is literally compelled to bear witness against itself.—
Unioeraaiiat, Boston.

The great contest. In which princes and statesmen,
and caniinals and bishops, are engaged, may be fully
understood by studying the documents published in
this volume, and Mr. Gladstone's powerful analysis
of the whole will shed light on every part.— Pres-
byterian, Phila.

Most unprejudiced readers will be able to judge the
fhll merits of the question for themselves after a
perusal of the Syllabus, which shows the exact ground
taken by the Roman Church upon progress and mod-
em scientific researcli. Dr. Schaflfs paper on the
Council is a calm and dignified document, fortified at
every step by his authorities.— .Soston Saturdai/ Jiveii-
ing&auUe,

Whatever diflTerences of religious opinion there may
be among educated men, there can be no qaestinii
that the pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone was both tenta-
tive and symptomatic and that the questions which it
discusses are living issues^ and must continue to be
so in European politics. It is necessary, therefore,
for every student of current history to learn, not from
the ex parte and overdrawn statements of religions
controversialists, but from the ipsiettima verba of the
new dogmas themselves, exactly how much or how
little of doctrine that has any bearing on citizenship
the Roman Catholic of the present day is required t(»
believe. For an intelligent understanding of this
subject, the volume before us off'ers, in small com-
pass, every needed tAcWitj.— Brooklyn Eagle.

This volume appends a very complete history of the
Vatican Council, prepared bv Rev. Dr. Schaflf; the
Papal Syllabus and Decrees themselves in Latin and
English. The reader is thus enabled to Judge the
correctness of the arguments based upon these acts
by their own phraseology, and to form his own opin-
ions independently.— ilm^rican and Qazette, Phila.

It contains Mr. Gladstone's famous essay on the
Vatican Decrees, a Histoi^ of the Vatican Council, bv
the compiler, and the Latin and English text of the
Papal Syllabus and the Vatican Decrees. Dr. SchafTs
historical sketch is taken fh>m his forthcoming history
of the Creeds of Christendom. It is a fhll and clear
statement, and helps the reader to understand what
goesbeli^re and what comes afterit—Al Y, Independent

■*-••

^-♦^

Published by HAEPEK & BEOTHEKS, New York.

JSent hy mail, postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of the price.

VATICAN ISM:

AN ANSWER TO

REPROOFS AND REPLIES.

BY THE

RIGHT HON. W. e/gLADSTONE, M. P.,

AUTHOR OF "THE VATICAN DECREES IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVKU ALLEGIANCE."

NEW YORK:
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,

FRANKLIN SQUARE.

1875.

CONTENTS.

FAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 5

The Replies which have appeared on this Occasion. The Insult.
Evidences of Personal Loyalty all that could be wished. Dr.
Newman. His Remarkable Admissions. Evidences as to the Char-
acter AND Tendencies op Vaticanism : most unsatisfactory.

II. THE RUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS 14

1. What are its Contents ? 16

2. What is its Authority ? 23

HI. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE

POPE 27

Breach with History, No. 1. From the Opinions and Declarations
OF the Roman Catholics of the United States for Two Centuries.

IV. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE

•

FOFE— continued 38

Breach with History, No. 2. From the History of the Council of
_ Constance. Gallicanism.

V. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE 47

VL REVIVED CLAIMS OF THE POPE 50

1. To. the Deposing Power 60

2. To THE Use op Force 65

VII. WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN 67

1. Its Alleged Superiority 57

2. Its Real Flaws 59

3. Alleged Non-interference op the Popes for Two Hundred Years. 63

VIU. ON THE INTRINSIC NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF THE PAPAL

INFALLIBILITY DECREED IN THE VATICAN COUNCIL GQ

IX. CONCLUSION 78

APPENDICES 89

VATICANISM.

I. Introductiok.

The number and qnality of tlic autagonists who liavo been di-aw;
into the field on the occasion offered by my tract on the Vatican ]
. crees,' and the interest in the subject which has been manifested 1
the public of Eugland and of many other countines, appear to show that
it was not inopportune. Tlie only special claim to attention with which
I could invest it was this, that for thirty years I had Btri\en hard,
together with others, to secure a full measure of civil justice for my
Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that I still retained the con,-
victiona by which these efforts had been prompted. Knowing w
the general indisposition of the English mind, amid the pressing (
laands of our crowded daily life, to touch any subject compEiratively
abstract and remote, I was not snrpnsed when many jom'uak of great
influence, i-oflccting this, indisposition, condemned the publication of
the Tract, and inspired Iloman authorities among us with the vain
conception that the discussion was not practical or Bignificant.^ In
Home itself, a different view was taken ; and the veiled prophets be-
hind the throne, hy whom the Latin Church is governed, brought
about its condemnation as blasphcinous, witliont peruBal, from the lips
of the Holy Father.^ The object, probably, was at oneo to prevent orj

' Appendix A.

' For esnmple; 'The rnrious orgnns of tlia preSB, ivith the shrewd politieal sent
ivhich ihej are eonspicoouB, wilhont any poariblB coUasion, extingnisliei! its politicn! import
ill a single morning.' — BUhop VanghniHa Pastoral Letter, p. 5.

" The liecloration of non avem, whicli, nf(er b brief intervdl, fcFllowod tho nnnonneemonl
^df (he t^ondenmntion, nppeni'cd tipoo sams siib^oiiucnt di»c;i9siiin to be negatived b

CONTENTS.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Replieb which have appeared on this Occasios. The Isshlt.

EVIPEKCES OP PeBSOSAL LoTALTI all that COPtD BE WISHED. DB.
NeWUAX. Uia ItEUARHABLG ASICSEIONB. EvLDEKCBa AB TO THE CHAR-
ACTER A\D TexuMiL'iiis OP Vatiuakibv: most oksatispactobt.

II. THE RUSTY TOOLS, THE STLLABUiS

1. What are ith Coktbntb?

2. What 18 its Actbositt?

■ 111. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE

POPE

IlaKACH WITH Uibtort, No. L Phou the Opiniosb and Declauations

OF THE BOUAH CATHOLICS OS THE UNITED STATES FOR TwO CeKTERIEB.

'IV. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE

TOVE—cenlinueil .'

BncACU wiiR HiSTOBY, No, 2. Fhou the History of the Cocncil of
Constance. Gallic ahisu.

V. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE

VL REVIVED CLAIMS OF THE POPE

J. To, THE Dei^siso Power

S. To THE Use of Force

VII. WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCOHDING TO THE VATICAN

L Its Ai.lecbd Supbeiobitt

2, Its Real Flaws

3. Alleged Noh-iktebperbkob op thb Popes for Two HirKnnED Tbabb.

'ni. ON THE ISTBINSIC NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF THE PAPAL

INFALLIBILITY DECREED IN THE VATICAN COUNCIL

IX. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES.

The nnmber and qnality of tlie autagonists who liavo been drawn
into tlie fielil on the oucaeion offered by iny tract on tlie Vatican De-
crees,' and the interest in the siibject wliicli has been manifested by
he public of England and of many other countries, appear to ahow that
Iwas not inopportune. The only siieoial claim to attention with which
t could invest it was this, tliat for thirty yeai-s I had Bb'i\'en liard,
together with othera, to Eectire a full lueasiu-e of civil justice for my
Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and that I still retained the con-
fcctions by which these efforts bad been prompted. Knowing well
■le general indisposition of the English mind, amid tlie pressiug de-
feands 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 as with the vaiu
conception that tlie discussion was not practical or significant.^ In
Rome itself, a different view was taten ; and the \eiled prophets be-
liind the throne, by whom the Latin Church is governed, brought
about its condemnation as blasphemous, without perusal, from the lijis

If the Holy Father,^ The object, probably, was at once to prevent or ^^
' Appendix A. ^^^H
■ For exomplB: 'The various orgiins of ihe press, nil!) ihe shvewj political senso for ^^^H
hith Uiey are coneineuoLLs, wiihout uny possible collasiou, cslingiiishad iis polilital import ^^^
iiiaingle morning." — Bishop Vaughan's Pailorat Lttltr, p, B. 1

' ' Tho ilerlaralion of ncn aiftiu, wfaluh, after a brief interval, followed the announcement I

f llie uonifemiintion, oppearcd upon some subseijiienl diaeiisaion to be negatived by tho ovi- ■

neutralize avowals of syiiipatliy from Eoiiiaii Catholic quartera-i
may have been with a like aim tliat A mimher of Prelates at cm
teredj tliongh hy no means with one voice, into the lists. At
the great name of Dr. Kewman was aiinouueed, and he too hi
plied to me, and explained himself, in a work to wbich I shall pi
ly refer. Even apart from the spolia ophna of this transcsn*
champion, I do not nndervaliie the ability, accomplishments, and
cipliue of that dinsion of the Homan Army which confroutB
Chnrch and nation. Besides its supply from indigenous sour
lias been strangely but very largely recruited fi'om the ranlis
English Chnrch, and her breasts have, for thirty yeare, been pii
mainly by children whom they had fed.

In these replies, of which the large majority adopt without
the Ultramontane hypothesis, it is most commonly alleged that I
insulted the Roman Catholics of these kingdoms. Dr. Newman, ai
to the nsG of harsh words, still announces (p. 3) that ' hea\'y chi
ha\'e been made against the Catholics of England.' Bishop Cliffoi-d,
in a pastoral letter of which I gladly acknowledge the equitable, V6~
strained, and Christian spirit, says I have proclaimed that since the
Vatican Decrees were published 'it is no longer possible for English
Catholics to pay to their temporal sovereign a full and nudivided alle-
giance.'

I am obliged to assert that not one of the writei-s against me has
apprehended or stated with accuracy my principal charge. Except a
prospective reference to ' converts,' the subject {to speak technically)
of all my propositions is the word ' Kome ;| and with reference to
these ' converts,' I epeak of what they suffer, not of what they do. It is
an entire, and even a gross error to treat all affinnations about Home
as equivalent to affirmations about British subjects of the Eoman com-
munion. 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 Iiave paraphrased my monosyllable ' Rome ' by the words
* the Papal chair, and its advisere and abettors ' (p. 9 ; Am. ed. p. 11). Un-
able aa I am to attenuate the cliarges, on the contrary bound rather to
plead guilty to the fault of having understated thera, I am on that ac-

ilence. But such dcclnrntioriB lU'e, I ct
KngUali SiotuC Imne,' Ujion canvenienci

v», well unilecstood in Home lu ilcpenJ, like a

^^^^V^ IKTBODUCTIOK. ■

count the more anxiouB that their aim shall be clearly iindei-stoo^B
First, then, I nmst again speak plainly, and I fear hardly, of that sy^B
teni, political rather than religious, which iu Germany is well termed
Yaticanism. It would be affectation to exclude from my language and
meaning its contrivere aud conscions promoters. But here in my mind,
aa well as in my page, any thing approaching to censure stops. Tlie
Vaticau Decrees do, in the strictest sense, establish for the Pope a su-
preme command over loyalty and civil duty. To the vast majority of
Roman Catholics they are, and iu all likelihood will long in their cai'e-
fully enveloped meaning remain, pmctically unknown. Of tliat small
minority who have spoken or fitted themselves to speak, a portion rej
ject tliem. Auother portion receive tliem wit!i an express reserve, tS
me perfectly satisfactory, against all their civil consequencea. AiiothfiM
Xiortion seem to enspend tlieir judgment until it is determined what'iH
a fi'ce Council, what is moral unanimity, what are declarations excaCh^U
drd, whetiier there has been a decisive and binding promulgation so sfl
to create a law, and whether the claim for an undue obedience need 1)^[
considered until some act tC undue obedience is asked. A very larg^
class, as it seems to me, tliink tJiey receive tliese Decrees, and do not.
They ai-e involved iu inconsistency, and that inconsistency is dangerous,
So I pi-csmne tliey would tell me that when I recite in tho Creed tliQ^
woi-ds, ' I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,' I am involved iu inn
consistency, and mj inconsistency is dangerous. To treat this aa-^J
'heavy charge' is surely iuaccurate; to call it an insult is (forgive th{S
word) preposterous, H

ITot even against men who voted under pressure, against their bette^B
^Hdnd, for these deplorable Decrees — nay, not even against those who
^^nsted them and now enforce them — is it for me to utter a word of
^^■nsure. The just appreciation of their difficulLies, tho judgment. of
^^Beir conduct, lies in a region far too liigh for me. To assail the sysM
^^Bii is t!ie Alpha and Omega of my desire ; and it is to mc mattei' Qfl|
^T^rot that I am not able to handle it as it deserves without reflecting^
upon the i>ei'8ons, be they wlio they may, that have brought it into tho
world ; have sedulously fed it in its weakneBs ; have reared it up- to its
baleful maturity; have forced it upon those who now foi-ce it upon
others; are obtaining for it from day to day fresh command over the
^oplpit, tho press, the confessional, the teacher's chair, the hisliop's

8 VATICANISM. ^^^^^H

tlirone ; bo that eveiy fatlier of a, family, and every teacltci' in the S^^H
coniinuiilon, Bhall, as he dies, be replaced by some one more S^JH
imbued with the new color, until at the last, in that moiety of flife-
whole Christian family, nothing shall remain except an Asian mon-
archy; nothing but one giddy height of despotism, and one dead level
of religious subserviencj'.

Put even of the most responsible abettors of that eystcin I desii'e
once for all to say that I do not presume in any way to inipcach their
Bineerity ; and that, as far as I am acquainted with theii' personal cbar-
acterB, I should think it great presumption to place myself in compar-
ison or competition with any of tliem.

So much for insult Much has also been said of my iguomnce and
incapacity in theology;^ a province which 1 had entered only at the
points wliere it crossed the border of the civil domain. Censures of
tliis kind ha\e great weight when they follow upon demonstration
given of erroi-a committed by the person who is the object of them;
but they can have ^ery little wlien they are used as Bubetitutes for such
a demonstration. In the absence of such proof, they can rank no
higher than as a mere artifice of controverey. I have endeavored ,to
couch all my positive statements in language of moderation, and not
one among tliem tliat appertains to the main line of argument has been
shaken. As to the use of rlietoric, another matter of complaint, I cer-
■ tainly neither complain of strong language used against me, nor do I
think that it can propei-ly be avoided, when tlie matters of fact, care-
fully ascertained and stated, are such that it assists toward a compre-
heneioa of their character and conaequences. At the same time, in the
HSe of such language, earnestness should not be alloT,\ed to dej^enerate
into dogmatism, and to qualify is far more itleaeant than to employ it.

With so mncli of preface, I pi'oceed to execute my twofold duty.
Oue of its branches is to state in what degree I conceive the immedi-
ate purpose of my Expostulation to have been served; and the other,
to examine wliether the allegations of antagonihts have dislodged my
arguments from their main positions, or, on the contrary, have raJn-

' For exumjile: by Archtiahop Monniiig, pp. 13, 177. Bisliop Ullnthome, LeIUr, p. 10.
Erpotitioit Unraveled, p. OS. Bisliop Vuuglian, p. S7. Month, December, 1674, p. 407.
itont of St. Augiatim, p. 10, With these legitimnta reproaches ia oddly combined, on ilie
part of tbe Archbishop, and, uppurentlr, of Bishop Ulhtthortie, a nappoailion tlint Dr. DoUin.
ger WHS in some manner concerned in my irnct on tlie VBtican Decrees. See Apuendix B.

INTRODUCTION.

iirmeJ them ; and to re-state — nay, even to enlarge — those positions
accordingly.

In considering the nature of the declarations on civil doty wiiich
have been elicited, it will not Le thought nnnatiiral if I begin with the
words of one to whom age and fame combine in assigning the most
conspicuous place — I mean Dr. Kewman.

Of tliis most remarkable man I must pause to speak a word. In mji
opinion, Lis seceaaion from the Chnrch of England has never yet b
estimated among ua at any thing like the full amotmt of its ealaniitons
importance. It has been said that tlic world does not know its great-
est men ; neither, 1 will add, is it aware of the iwwer and weight car-
ried by the words and by tlio acta of those among its greatest men
whom it does know. The Ecclesiastical historian will perhaps here-
after judge that this sece^ion was a much greater event than the great
event of the partial secession of John "Wesley, the only case of loss suf-
fered by the Church of England, sinco the Keformation, which can he
at all compared witii it in magnitude. I do not refer to ita effect upon
tlie mere balance of schools or parties in the Church ; that is an infe-
rior question. I refer to its effect opon tiie state of positive bcHef, an^
the attitude and capacities of the religions mind of England. Of thia
_ thii'ty years ago, he had the leadership : an office and power frona whtdj
lone but himself coidd eject him.

"Qaia deaidorio sit pucior aut modiia

' It has been his extraordinary, perhaps unexampled case, at a critid
3 period, fii'st to give to the religioua thought of his time and eountr
3 most powerful impulse which for a long time it had received fi-ora
by individual; and then to be the main involuntary cause of dieor-
jianizing it in a manner aa reniarkablej 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 Noi
folk. But in doing so, I can never lose the recollection of the perhag
ill-appreciated greatness of his early life and works. I do not presnni
to intrude into the sanctuary of his present thoughts : but, by reason g
that life and those works, it seems to me tliat there is sometln'ng we
mnat look upon with the affection with which Americans regard those
Englishmen who etrove and wrought before the colonization or sever-

10 VATICANISM. v^^H

ance of their country. Nay, it may not be presuniptnoua to say we
Lavo ft possessory right in the better half of him. All he produces is
and must be most notable. But has ho outrun, has he overtaken the
greatness of the 'History of the Arians' and of the 'Parochial Ser-
mons,' those indestii'uctible classics of English theology ?

And agaiu, I thankfully record the admbsions which such integrity,
combined with such aenteness, has not been able to witlihold. They
are of the greatest importance to the vindication of my argument. In
my reading of Ids work, we have his authority for tho following state-
meiits ; That Roman Catholiis are bound to bo ' as loyal as other sub-
jects of the State ;' and that Eome is not to give to the civil power
' trouble or alai-m ' (p. 7). That the aeeuranccs given by the Roman
Catholic Bishops in 1825-26 have not been strictly fidtilled (pp.- 12-14).
That Roman Catliolics can not wonder that statesmen should feel theuw
selves aggrieved (\i. IT). That Popes are sometimes in the wrong, and
sometimes to be resisted, even in matters affecting the government and
welfare of the Chureh (jjp. 33, 34), That the Deposing power is defen-
sible 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 ob-
served) he did not think unjust, ought not to retire from the prosecu-
tion of that war on the command of the Pope (p. 52). Tiiat conscience
is the aboriginal vicar of Christ (p. 57): ehi iiichtigies Wori/ and Dr.
Newman, at an ideal public dinner, will drink to conscience firat, and
the Pope afterwards (p. 60), That one of the great dangers of the Ho-
man 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 tho Pope approves, is not absolutely bind-
ing thereby, but requii'es a moral unanimity, and a subsequent recep-
tion 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 sufficient historical grounds in behall
of either ot them ;' and that the confutation of such an opponent is
now to be sought only in ' the fact of the definition being made *

^^^^^^^^^7 IKTltODUCTION. 1^

(p. 107). I fiball indulge in none of the tannts, wliicli Dr. Newman aqW
ticipatesy on the want of correspondence between him and other ApoW
ogists ; and I shall leave it to theologians to examine the bearing of
these admissions on the scheme of Vaticanism, and on other parts o£
his own work. It is qjioiigli for me to record that, even if they stood
alone, tliey would suffice to jiistiij the publication which has given ' ocJ
cKsion' for them; and that on the point of Dr. Newman's practic^B
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 every thing that can be wished. Among lay-
men who declare they accept the Decrees of 1870, I must specially
malsc the same avowal as to my esteemed fiiend Mr. De Lisle ; and
again, as to Mr. Stores Smith, who regards me with ' silent and intense
contempt,' hut who does not scruple to write as follows: J

' If this comitry decide to (i;o to wnr, for nny cnuse whatsoever, I will hold my own opiniolH
ns to tlie jnslk'o ur palicy of that war, but I will do oil that in me liea to bring victory to Qlffl
British stanUard. If there he any Pariiamenlary or Mnnicipnl election, and any I'riest dfl
Bishop, bnckeil hy Archbishop and the Pope, ndviae me to lake a certain line of action, ni^|
I conceive that ihe opposite course isnccessary for the general weal of my feUow-coantryme^l
1 shall take the oppoEJte.'' j|

Wlien it is considered that Dr. Newman is like the sun in the ilM

telleetual iiemisphere of Anglo-Komanism, and that, besides those aa^
ceptora of tlie iDecrees who write in the same sense, various Roman
Catholics of weight and distinction, well known to represent the views
of many more, have held equally outspoken and perhaps more consist: -
ent language, I can not but say that the immediate purpose of my apM
peal has been attained, in so far that the loyalty of onr Eoman Catln

Kit fellow-suhjecte in the mass is evidently untainted and secure. fl
Jt would be mijust to Archbishop Manning, ou whose opinions, ij^M
ttny points, I shall again Lave to animadvert, were I not to say ths^
his declarations' also materially assist in leading me to this conclusion :
an avowal I am the more bound to make, because I tliink the premises
fi-om which he draws them are snch as, if I were myself to accept—
them, would certainly much impair the guarantees for my performing^
under all circumstances, the duties of a good subject. fl

H Tliis means that tlio poison which circulates from Eome has nofl

^B ' Letter in Hali/ai: Courier of December fl, 1ST4, "S

^H ' Archbishop Manning, Valicnn Decreet, pp. 1 30-40. fl

13

VATICANISM.

been taken into tbe syBteni. Unliappily, what I may term tlio minor-
ity among the Apologists do not represent the ecdesia dooena; the
eilent diffusion of its influence in the lay atmosphere ; the true cnrrent
and aim of thought in the Papal Chnrch ; now given up to Vatiuaniem
dejure, and likely, according to all human prohahility, to come from
year to year more under its power. . And liere again the ulterior pur-
pose of my Traet 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 advci'se to the pi-in-
ciplca of human freedom and in its essence unfaithful to civil dnty,
the character of that scheme should be fully cousidered and undei^
stood. It is high tiioe that the chasm should be made visible, severing
it, and all who knowingly and thoroughly embiace it, from the princi-
ples which we had a right to belie\'e not only pi*evailed among the Eo^
man Catholics of these eoimtries, but were allowed and recognized by
the authorities of their Cbiircb ; and would continue, therefore, to form
the hasia of their system, permanent aud undisturbed. For the more
complete attainment of this object, I must now pi^ocecd to gather to-
gether the many threads of tbe controverey, as it has been left by my
numerous opponents. This I sliall do, not from any mere call of &\
ulation or logical consistency, bnt for strong practical reasons. '

Dr. Newman's letter to the Duke of Norfolk is of the highest inter-
est as a psychological study. 'Whate\'er he writes, whether we agi-ee
with him or not, presents to us this great attraction as well aa advant-
age, that we have eveiy where the man in the work, that his words are
the transparent covering of his nature. If there be obliquity in them,
it is purely intellectual obliquity; the work of an intellect sharp
enough to cut the diamond, aud bright aa the diamond which it cnts.
How rarely it is found, in the wayward and inscrutable records of oxa
race, that with these instruments of an almost snperhuraan force and
snbtletj, i-obnstness of clisracter aud energy of will are or can be de-
veloped in the same extraordinary pro^xirtions, so as to integrate that
structure of combined thought and action which makes life a moi-al
whole. ' There are gifts too large and too fearful to be handled free-
ly." But I turn from an incidental reflection to observe tbat my dutv

INTRODUCTION.

is tu appreciate tlie letter of Dr. Newman exclusively in relation to nij'
T]-act. I tlianlifullj' liero record, in tlie iiret place, the kindliness of
his tone. If lie baa striven to minimize the Decrees of tlie Vatican, I
am certain iiQ has also striven to minimize his censnres, and has put
words aside before they touched bis paper, which must have been in
his thoughts, if not npon his pen.. I sum up this pleasant portion of -i
my duty with the language of Helen respecting Hector: Triirfifi uig, i

It is, in my opinion, an entire mistake to suppose that tlieories like
those, of which Home is the centre, are not operative on the thongbts
and actions of men. An army of teachers, the largest and the most
compact in the world, is ever Bcdulously at work to bring tliem into
practice. Within om- own time they liave moat powerfnllj', as well as
most injuriously, altered tlie spirit and feeling of the Eoman Church
at large ; and it will he strange indeed if, having done so nmcb in tlio
last half-contury, 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 J
the present. Still less do I feel the same security for other lands a
for this. Nor can I o\"erlook indications which lead to the belief that,
even in this country, and at tliis time, the pivaceedingg of Vaticanism
thi'eaten to be a source of some practical inconvenience. I ara confi-
dent that if a system so radically bad is to be made or kept innocuoua, .1
the fiiBt condition for attaining such a result is that its movements^
should bo carefully watched, and, above all, that the bases on which'J
they work should be faithfully and unflinchingly exposed. Nor can I j
quit this portion of the sabject without these remarks. The satis- 1
factory \icws of Archbishop Manning on the present rule of civil J
allegiance have not prevented him fi-om giving his countenance ■]
as a responsible editor to the lucubrations of a gentleman who
denies liberty of conscience, and asserts the right to persecute when
there is tlie power; a light which, indeed, he has not himself die-,
claimed.

Nor must it be forgotten that the very best of all the declarations wtf
have Iieai-d from those who allow themselves to bo entangled in the'j
nieslies of tlie Vatican Decrees are, every one of tlieni, uttei'cd subjecl; 1

14 VATICASISM.

to the condition tliat, upon orders from Rome, if such orders ebould is-
sue, they shall ba qualified or retracted or reversed.

'A Tirealh. cnu uiimnke lliem, hs a Iireatli lias made.'
But Gveu apart from all this, do what we may in cheeking externd
develop meuta, it is not in our power to neutralize the mischiefs of tlie
wsnton aggression o£ 1870 upon the liberties — too aeantj-, it is excuBS
ble to think — which np to that epoch had been allowed to pi'ivate Chri»
tiana 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 aggravate open broils with tJie civil power, by undenuinii
moral liberty they impair moral i-esponsibility, and silently, in fixe et
cession 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 po]
tions of my original statement which most lay within the province oi
theology, and dwelt principally on two main propositions.

I. That Rome had reproduced for active service those doctrineB
former times, tei-med by me ' rusty tools,' wliich she was fondly thongbl
to have disused.

II. That the Pope now claims, with plenary authority, fi-ora every
convert and member of hia Church, that he ' shall place his loyalty au^
civil duty at the mercy of another:' that other being himself.

These ai-o the assertions which I now hold myself bound further
snstain and prove.

IL The Rusty Tools. The Syllabus.

1. Its Contents.

2. Its Axithority.
With regard to the proposition that Rome lias refurbished lier ' rnBt^'

, tools, Dr. Newman saya it was, by these tools that Europe was bi-ongbl
into a civilized condition; and thinks it worth while to ask whether il
is my wish that penalties so sharp and expressions so iiigh shonld bi
of daily use.'

I may be allowed to say, in reply to the remark I ]ia\-e cited, that I

' Dr. Newumn, p. 82.

THE BUSTY TOOLS. TUE SYXLABUS.

have nowhere pi-oEumed to pronounce a, general censure on tlie conduct ^|
of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. That is a vast question, reaching ^
far beyond Tuy knowledge or capacity. I believe much is to be justly
said in praise, niucli as justly in blame. But I can not view the state-
ment that Papal claims and conduct created the civilization of Europe
as other than thoroughly unhiatorical and one-sided ; as resting upon a J
narrow selection of evidence, upon strong exaggeration of what that H
evidence imports, aud upon an 'invincible ignorance' as to all the fl
rest. H

Many things may have been suited, or not unsuited, to rudo time*' H
and indetei'minate ideas of political right, tlie reproduction of which a fl
at the least strange, perhaps even monstrous. We look batik with in- H
terest and respect upon our early fire-arms as t!iey 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 consigned to obscurity and rust, my answer to Dr. •
Newman's question is that they should have slept forever, (ill perchance h
some reclaiming plow of the future should disturb them. M

' . . . qaum finibua illis ^^^

Agricola, iucun-o tGrmm moUtua ai'nCro, ^^M

EsesK inren'iet scabrA rubigine pila.'' ^^H

As to the proof of my accusation, it appeared to nie that It might be
sufficiently given in a summary but true account^ of some important
poi-tiona of tlie Eueyclica of December S, 1864, and especially of the
accompanyiug Syllabus of the same date, ^

The replies to the five or six pages in which I dealt witli this subject V
have BO swollen as to reach fifteen or twenty times the bulk. I ant^
sorry that they involve me in the necessity of entering upon a fewH
pages of detail which may be wearisome. But I am bonnd to vindicated
my good faith and care, whore a failure in either involves results <^H
real importance. These i-esults fall under the two following heads: ^^|

(1.) The Syllabus ; what is its language i ^M

(3.) The Syllabus ; what is its authority 1 ^M

' Virgil, (JeoivjJCi, L 408. ^H

' Erraneonoly called h; some of my anCagonists a trsnslaCian, and then coDdemncd as a

bud trniislution. Bpl I know of no recipe for trnnfllattng into leas than half (he bxilk of the

orij^nal.

16 VATICANISM.

As to tJie lauguage, 1 have jnstlj represeuCed it : as to its authority,
my statement is not above, but beneath tlie mark.

1. The Cojitenta of the SyUabus.

My i-epresentatiou of the language of the Syllabus has been assailed
ill strong terms. I proceed to defend it : observing, however, that mj
legitimate object was to state in popular terms the effect of propositioaa
more or less technical and scholastic; and, secondly, that I did not
present each and every proposition for a separate disapproval, but di-
rected attention rather to the effect of the document as a wliole, in a
qualifying ])assagc {p. 13 ; Am, ed. p, 14) wliicli no one of my critics IllH
been at the pains to notice.

Nos. 1-3. — The first charge of nnjiist representation is this : ' I liavtf
stated that the Pope condemns (p. 25 ; Am. ed. p. 21) liberty of tbfi
press and liberty of speech. By reference to the original, it is sho^p
■ that tlie right of printing and speaking is not- in terms condemned
universally ; but only the right of each man to print or speak all hi?
thoughts {suos conceptua quoscimque), whatever they may be. Her©-
upon it is justly observed tliat in all countries there are laws ngaiugt
blasphemy, or obscenity, or sedition, or all tliree. It is argued, then, that
men are not allowed the right to speak or print all their tiionghts, autt
that such an extreme right only is what the Pope has condemned.

It ap])Dai^ 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 Las existed in any eonntty
of the worlj. Now he says he is condemning one of the commonlv
prevailing errors of the time, familiarly known to the bishoijs wliom btt
addj'esses.* What bishop knows of a State which by law allows a pert
fectly free coui-se to blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition ? The world
knows yuite well what is meant by free speech and a free jiress. It
does mean, generally, perhaps it may be said nnivereally, tlie right of
declaring all opinions whatsoever. The limit of freedom is not the
I of the opinion, but it is this, that it shall be opinion in good

' The Mostk, DeeonibGr, 1874, p. i'.H. Coleridge, Aboniiiuiii,
ip UUathome, i'(i»(orni Letlei; p. iG. Maithi'f St. AvgniHns'i, p. 16. I)r. Neniuan, pp,B
2, in some pitrt.

' 'Probi noscitia hoc tempore aon paacoa reperiri, qui,' etc. — Enovcl., December 8, I)

K

THE RUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. 17 I

faitli, and not mere grossuess, passion, or appeal to vlolenco. TJte law
of England at this moment, aliowhig all opinions wliatover, provided
they are treated by way of rational discom-He, most closely corresponds
to wliat tlio Pope has condemned. His condemnation ia illustrated by
his own practice aa Governor in the Roman States, -wliei-e no opinion
could be spoken cir printed but siicli aa he approved. Once, indeed, he v
peiToitted a free diacnssion on Saint Peter's presence and prelacy in the
city; bnt he repented quickly, and forbade the repetition of it. We
might even cite his practice aa Pope in 1S70, where e\'ery thing was
done to keep the proceedings of the Council secret from the Chnrcli
which it professed to represent, and oven practically secret from its
members, except those who were of the governing cabal. But there
can be no better mode of exhibiting hia real meaning than by referring
to his account of the Austrian law. JIdo lege omnis omniwm opinio-
num cC UhraricB artis libertas, omnia turn Jidel, turn conacienlice ae
doelrincB, Uberiaa statuitur.^ I'd the kind of condemnation given, I ■
sliall again refer; but the matter of it is nothing abstract or imaginary, ^B
it is actual f I'cedom of thinking, speaking, and printing, as it is practiced ^
in a great civilized and Christian empire. I repel, then, tiio charge
against me as no better than a verbal snbterfnge; and I again affinn
that in his Syllabus, aa in liis acts, the Pojje baa uoiidemned liberty of
speech and liberty of the press.

No. 5,^1 hax'e stated that tlie Pope condemns ' those who assign to
the State the power of defining the civil rights {jura) and pi-ovince of
the Church.' Ilcrcupon it is boldly stated that ' the word civil is a
pureintcqiolation." TbisstatementDr.Newman'enndertaldng tempts
hira to quote, bnt his sagacity and scholarship save him fi'Oin adopting.
Anticipating some cavil such as this, I took care (which is not noticed)
to place the vioiAjura in my text. I now affirm that my translation
is correct. -Jtia means, not right at large, biit a specific form of right,
and in this case civil right, to which meaning indeed the word con-
stantly leans. It refers to right which is social, relative, extrinsic. Jua
I situm eat in generis humani aocietate (Cic. Tuac. 3-26). If.

VATICANISM.

a theological definition is desired, take that of Dens : Accipiiur potUi-
simum pfo jure pr out est in altera, oui debet satisfieri ad (^gualita-
tern/ dejure aicsumpta hie agitiir.'' It is not of tiie internal consti-
tntion of the Church and the righta of its members inter se that the
proposition treats, nor yet of its ecclesiaatical standing in I'eferenee
to other bodies ; bnt of its righta in the face of tlie State — Uiat is to
say, of its civil rights. My account therefore was accurate, and Ifr.
Coleridge's criticism superfluous.

I must, however, admit that Vaticanism has a way of escape. For
perhaps it does not admit that the Chiu-ch enjoys any civil rights ; but
considers as her own, and therefore spbitual in their source, snch rights
as we consider accidental and derivative, even where not abusive.

On this subject I will refer to a high authority. The Jesuit Schra-
der was, I believe, one of those employed in drawing up tlie Syllabus.
He lias pubhshed a work, witli a Papal Approbation attached to it, in
which he converts the condemnatory negations of the Syllabus into the
corresponding affirmatives. For Article XXX. he gives the following
proposition :

'Tlie immuoitios a( the Church, and of eccledaatical persona, have not
tivil righl.'

Ue adds the remark: 'but are rooted in the Church's own righ^
given to her from God.' *

Ko. 7. — I have eaid those persons are condemned by the Syllabus
who hold that in countries called Catholic the free exercise of othei* r&«
ligions may laudably be allowed. Dr. Newman truly observes* that it
is the fi^ee esercise of religion by immigrants oi- foreignei's whicii ia
meant (hoininibus illuc immigi'antihu8\ and that I have omitted tHe
words. I omitted them, for my case was strong enough without them.
But they seem to sti-engthen ray case. For the claim to a free exercise
of religion on behalf of immigrants or foreigners is a stronger one thaBi
on behalf of natives, and has been so recognized in Italy and in Rome
itself. I think I am right in saying that difference of tongue has gen-
erally been recognized by Church law as mitigating the objections to
the toleration of dissidence. And it is this stronger claim, not the

I THE RDSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. igM

weaker one, which ia condemned. So that if there be & fault, it is thsjB
fault of under, not of over statement. M

Again I support niyaelf by the liigli authority of Schrader the JeeiuM
The following ia his Article LXXVII. It draws no distinction ofl
connti'ies: I

'In our t'ibw it is atill useful that the Ciitholic religion should be maiolniued as the onlyj
Slate religion, to the excluaion oFevsty otber.' ' m

In the appended remark he observes that on this account the Fope^
in 1856, condemned the then recent Spanish law which tolerated oth^M
forms of worship.^ ■

Ko. S. — I am charged, again,^ with mistranslating under my eight^B
head. Tlie condemnation in the Syllabus is, as I conceived, capable orl
being construed to apply to the entire proposition aa it ia there given,
or to a part of it only. In brief it is this : ' The Episcopate has a cer-
tain power not inherent, but conferred by the State, which may there-
fore be withdrawn at the pleasure of the State.' The condemnation
might be aimed at the assertion that such a power exists, or at the as-
sertion that it is withdrawable at pleasure. In the latter sense, the con-
demnation is unwise and questionable as a general pi-oposition ; in the
former sense it is outrageous beyond all bounds ; and I am boldly ac-
cused of mistranslating* because I chose the milder impntation of the
two, and underatood the censure to apply only to withdrawal ad Uhi-
tum. I learn now tliat, in the opinion of this antagonist at least, the
State was not the source of (for example) the power of coinage, which
was at one time exercised by the Bishops of Durham. So that the np-
shot is, either my construction is right, or my charge is milder than it|
shonld have been,

Nos. 13, 14. — A grave charge is made against me respecting the matf
rimonial propositions, because I have cited tlie Pope as condemning
those who aflirm that the matrimonial contract is binding whether
there is or is not (according to the Roman doctrine) a Sacrament, an'd _
have not at the same time stated that English mai-riages are held 1
Tiome to bo sacramental, and therefore valid."

No charge, serious or slight, could be more entirely futile. But it if

' Schrador, p. 81

'Inf. ' Mr. Coleridge, Aliamimlia'i of Desolntion, p. 21.

' Monk of St. Awjattint't,^.\5. AboniiiiatiOH,p.2'.

20 VATICANISM.

serious, and not eligbt, and tliose who prompt the examination mnat
abide the recoil. I begin thus :

1. I am censured for not having given distinctions between odo
country and another, which the Pope himself has not given.

2. And which are also thought tmneceaearj hy authorized expound-
ers of the Syllabus for the faitliful.'

I have before me the Exposition,^ with the text, of the Eneyclica and
Syllabus, published at Cologne in 1874 with the approval of authority
{mit oberhirdilicher Approbation). In p. 45 it is distinctly taught that
with maiTiage the State lias 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 compnl-
sion, prevents the two concuhinary parties from I'epeuting and ahiut-
doniug their guilty relation to one another. .Exactly the same iB the
docti"ine of the Pope himself, in his speeches published at Kome, where
civil inarriHge is declared to he, for Christiana, nothing more than a
mere concubinage, and a filthy .concubinage {sosso eoncubinato)*
These extraordinary declarations are not due to the fondness of the
PontifE for speaking impromptu. In his letter of September 19, 1858,
to King Victor Emmanuel, he declares that matrimony carrying the
Sacrament is alone lawful for Christians, and that a law of civil mar-
riage, which goes to divide them, for practical purposes, constitutes a
concubinage in the guise of legitimate marriage.* So tliat, in truth, is
all countries within the scope of these denunciations, the parties to a
civil maiTiage are declared to he liviug in an ■illicit connection, which
they are called upon to renounce. This call is addressed to them gep-
arately as well as jointly, the wife being suirnnoned to leave her hus-
band, aud the husband to abandon liis wife ; and after this pi'etended
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 Clnircli of Rome. I know not
by what infatuation it is that advei-sarieB have compelled me thus to
develop a state of facts created by the highest authorities of the Itomau

■ AppeDd[x C.

° Die Enesclica, der Si)llalnta, und die vricAligilen darin angejvlirtea Actensliichf, ntbu
iiner avt/iihTiicheii MnleiHng. Koln, 18T4.
' DiteerH di Pio IX. Roma, 1872,1873. Vol.i. p,193; vol. ii. p. 3o6.
> *Berutil liet AUoctiona dt Pie IX., ele. TiiriB : I^clore, 18«,'^, p. 313.

r

THE RUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. '

Clinrch, which I shall now'not shrink from calling horrible and revolt-
ing in itself, dangerous to the morals of society, the structure of the
family, and the peace of life.

It is trne, indeed, that the two hundred thousand non-Roman marri^ \
ages which are annually celebrated in England do not at present fall J
under the foul epithets of Rome. But why t Not because we marryy J
as I believe nineteen twentieths of us marry, under the sanctions of re^ I
ligion ; for our marriages are, in the eye of the Pope, purely ci vil mar- 1
riages ; but onljj for the technical, accidental, and precarious reason that. 1
the disciplinary decrees of Trent are not canouically in force in this
country. I apprehend that there is nothing, unless it be motives of
mere policy, to prevent the Pope fi-om putting them into force here
when be pleases. If, and when that is done, every marriage thereafter
concluded in the English Church will, according to his own words, be a i
filthy concubinage.

But what claim of right have wc to be treated better than othera i 1
The Trideutiue decrees have force, I understaud, in Italy, Frauce, Gel"- J
many, Austria, Poland, Hungary. If bo, every civil marriage in thosQ i
countries, and every religious marriage not contracted before a Roman ]
Parochua, as the Council of Trent requires, is but the formation of a 1
guilty connection, which each of the parties severally is charged by tlie I
Cimrch of Rome to dissolve, under pain of being held to be in mortal jj
sin.

I believe this statement can not bo impeached. It can only be even
qualified by pointing out that Rome has reserved to herself, if and wheii
she pleases, the application of tlie rule of the Council of Trent, absurd-
ly called Clandestinity, to non-Roman mairiages in Ti'identine conn;
tries. Benedict XIV., a great authority, questioned the propriety pB'l
policy of the rule; and Pius Til., in a communication to the Primat^l
Ualberg, formerly Archbishop of Mentz, referred with approval to the.4
language of Benedict XIV. But even they have never taken that^
course wliicli appears to be the mtional one, namely, to allow to non*
Koman marriages generally, if contracted solemnly and with due pre-i
caution, that same consensual validity which all allow to belong to mar-
riages outside the Christian pale. The upshot, then, of their opinions
seems to be this : that while stigmatizing marriages not Tridentinc as
concubinages in the manner we have 8oeu, a power is reserved, ui\der

22 VATICANISM.

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 lioman 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 com-
merce, and rearing our children under a false pretext of legitimacy.

This, then, is the statement I now make. It has been drawn from
me by the exuberant zeal and precipitate accusations of the school of
Loyola.

No. 18. — ^Finally, it is contended that I misrepresent Home in stat-
ing that it condemns the call to reconcile itself with progress, liberal-
ism, 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.^
It appears to be claimed for Popes that they shall be supreme over the
laws of language. But mankind protests against a system which pal-
ters in a double sense with its own solemn declarations; imposing
them on the weak) glorying in them before those who are favorably
prepossessed, and then. contracting their sense ad libitum, ewen to the
point of nullity, by arbitrary interpolation, to appease the scandalized
understanding of Christian nations. Without doubt, progress, liberal-
ism, modem civilization, are terms more or less ambiguous ; but they
are, undei* a sound general rule, determinable by the context. Now
the contexts of the Syllabus and Encyclica are perfectly unambiguous:
they perfectly explain what the Pope means by the words. He means
to condemn all that we consider fair limitation of the claims of priest-
ly 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 w^ho treat the sovereignty over it as a property, and who

^ Month, as sup. p. 496. Bishop XJllathorae, Expostulation Unraveled, p. 69.
* Dr. Newman, p. 90.

THE EUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. 23

would enforce on the people — for example, of the Papal States — a gov-
ernment 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 allegations of opponents in respect to those heads where they
have not been pleased to enter upon jdetails.^

Now it is quite idle to escape the force of these charges by re-
proaches aimed at my unacquaintance with theology, and by recom-
mendations, sarcastic or sincere, that I should obtain some instruction
in its elements. To such reproaches I shall peacefully and respect-
fully bow, so soon as I shall have been convicted of error. But I think
I have shown that the only variations from exact truth to which I can
plead guilty are variations in the way t)f understatements of the case
which it was my duty to pfoduca

2. l^he AutJwrity of the Syllabus.

m

I have next to inquire what is the authority of the Syllabus ?

Had I been inclined to push my case to extremes, I might very
well have contended that this document was delivered ex cathed7*d.
Schulte, whose authority as a Canonist is allowed on all hands to be
great, founds his argument on that opinion.^ Dr. Ward, who has been
thanked^ by His Holiness for his defense of the faith, wondere that
any one can doubt it.* The Pope himself, in his speeches, couples the
Syllabus with the Decrees of the Vatican Council, as being jointly the
great fundamental teachings of these latter days ; and he even de-
scribes it as the only anchor of safety for the coming time.* 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

. , . , ' -■

> 77ie Month, as sup, p. 497.

' Power of the Roman Popes (transl. by Sommers. Adelaide, 1871).
' Dublin Review, July, 1870, p. 224.
• * Ibid., July, 1874, p. 9.

• Discorsi di Pio JX., vol. i. p. 69.

* Fessler, True and False Infallibility (English transL), p. lit

24 VATICANISM.

tliat the Syllabus is not a document proceeding ex cathedrd. But it
touches faith and morals ; its condemnations are, and are allowed to be,
assertions of their contradictories, into which assertions they have been
formally converted by Schrader, a writer of authority, who was oflBcial-
ly employed in its compilation. Furthermore, though I was wi-ong (as
Dr. Newman has properly observed^) in assmning 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 Proposi-
tion) declares that precediifg 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 touch-
ing faith or morals, so that there is no subject-matter for a dogmatic
definition.^ But the depositions of sovereigns were wont to be founded
on considerations of faith or morals ; as when Gregory VII., in A.D.
1079, charged upon Henry IV. many capital crimes,^ and as when In-
nocent III. deposed Eaymond of Toulouse for (among other reasons)
not proceeding satisfactorily with the extirpation of .the Albigenses.*
The Christian creed itself is chiefly composed 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
claimis 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.^ But he appears to have overlooked
the perfectly explicit covering letter of Antonelli, which in the Pope's
name ftansmits 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 ha^'e doubts upon the question whether it be

* Newman, p. 82.

* Fessler, Fraie eiya«s«e 7n/ai7/«6i7»7^(fe5 Pap€« (French transl.)> p. 89. •
» Greenwood, Cathedrd Petri, ir. 420.

* Ibid., V. 549. » Fessler, p. 132.

THE EUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. 25

ex cathedrd : theological science will hereafter have to examine and \
decide the matter :' in the mean time every Koman Catholic is bound
to submit to and obey it. Such is the low or moderate doctrine con-
cerning the Syllabus.^ Thus its dogmatic authority is probable : its
title to universal obedience is absolute, while among its assertions is.
that the Chm*ch 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, I find
myself to be breathing another air, and discussing, it would seem, some
other Syllabus. If the Pope were the author of it, he would accept
it.^ But he is not,* and no one knows who is. Therefore it has no
dogmatic force.* It is an index to a set of dogmatic Bulls and Allo-
cutions, but it is no more dogmatic itself than any other index or
table of contents.® Its value lies in its references, 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, contradicts 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 curb exaggerations,'' 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 obligation of
conscience.' He questions its title, indeed, to be held as ex cathedrd^
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 ad-
mits to be binding. • But here Dr. Newman is in flat contradiction to

» Fessler, pp. 8, 132, 184. » Ibid., p. 81.

» Ibid., p. 8. 'Ibid., p. 8.

* Newman, p. 20. . ' Ibid., p. 81.

* Ibid., p. 79. » Fessler, p. 8 (French trnnsl).

28 VATICANISM.

a poi'tion of tho Italian people. Eat of tJie four pi-opositioufl

say that I accept tlieni all, eiibjeet to the very simple condi:
tbe word 'not' be inserted in the three which are affirmative,
equivalent stnick out from the one whicli ia negative.

Oi', to state the ease in my own words :

My task will lie to make good the two following assertions,
were the principal subjects of my former argument :

1. That upon the authority, for many generations, of those
ceded Archbifihop Mauuing and his coadjutore in their present
position, as well as upon other authority, Papal Infallibility
' a doctrine of Divine Faith before the Council of tho Vati<
held.'

And that, tlievefore, tlie Vatican Decrees have changed the o1
tioiis and conditions of oivil allegiance.

2, That tbe clajm of tlie Papal Church against obedience to the civil
power ill certain cases not only goes beyond, but is essentially different
from that made by other i-eligious commniiions or by their membere
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 piirposee
of the State the same with that of otlier Christians, but is diiferentl/
limited.

In his able and lengtliened woi-k, Ai-chbishop Manning has found
space for a dissertation on the great German quarrel, bnt has not in-
cluded, in his proof of the belief in Papal Infallibility before 1870, any
reference to the history of the Church over which he presides, or t^
sister Church in Ireland. Tliia 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 L'ish penal law*
against Koman Catholics wei-o repealed on the faith of assur
wliich have not been f ultilled.

Had all antagonists been content to reply with the simple ingennons-
ncsB of Dr. Newman, it might have been unnecessary to resume this
portion of the sobject. I make no complaint of the Archbishop ; for
such a reply would have destroyed his case. Dr. Newman, struggling
hard with the difflcnlties of his task, finds that the statement of Dr.
Doyle requires (p. 12) 'some pions interpretation;' that in 1826 the

THE VATICVN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBILITY.

tlergy botli of England aud Ireland were trahied"^ui Galilean opiTiionR, 1

K 13), aud had modes of thinking * foreign altogether to the minds o
Ee entourage of the Holy See;' that the British ministere ought to
applied to Eome (p. 14) to learn the civil duties of Britisli sub-
KJts ; and that ' no pledge from Catholics ivas of any value to which
Rome was not a party.'

This declaration involves all, and more than all, that I had \'enlured I
letantly to iinp'nte. Statesmen of the future, recollect the words,
1 recollect from whom they came : from the man who hy his genius,
lety, aud learning towers above all the eminences of the Aiiglo-Papal
inion; who, so declares a Romish organ,' 'has been the mind
i tongue to shape and express the English Catholic position in the
feny controvei'sieB which have arisen' since 1843, and who has been
psed from liis repose on this occasion only by the most fervid ap-
|b1s to him as the man that could best teaoh hia co-religionists how
I what to think. The lesson received is this. Although pledges
pre given, although their vahdity was firmly and even passionately'
lerted, although the subject-matter was oue of civil allegiance, ' no
! from Catholics was of any vahie to which Rome was not a
bty'(p.l4).

in alt seriousness I ask whether there is not involved in tliese worda I
£ Dr. Newman an ominous approximation to my allegation that the^ I
seeder to the Roman Church ' places his loyalty and civil duty at the. i
Brey of anoClier?'

But as Archbishop Manning has asserted that tlie Decrees of the
btican have 'iii no jot or tittle' altered civil allegiance,^ and that
(efore the Council was held the infallibility of the Pope was a doe-
inc of Divine Faith,'* and as he is the ofRcia! head of the Anglo-'
I body, I must test his assertions by one of those appeals to his-
tory which he has sometimes said are ti-eason to the Church;* as in-
ileed they ai'o in liis sense of the Church, aud in his sense of treasoni-
It is only justice to the Archbishop to add that he does not stand \

' The .Vonth, Decambar, 1S7J, p. 401.
' Bishop Doyle, EmiT/ on the Claims, p. 38.
' Letler to the London Tlmen, Noi-ember 7, 1874.

' Letlei' to the New York Herald, November 10, iS7i. Letter to ifacmi/lan's MaffOzM
October 22.

' Temjiural Misiion nf Me Uii\^ Gho>l.

30 VATICANISM. >^^^^H

alone. Bishop Ullatliorne s&jb, ' The Pope always wielded this infa^
bility, and all men knew this to he the fact,'' AVe shall presently find
some men, whose history the Bishop ehould ha\"e been familiar wift,
who did not know this to be the fact, but very aolemnly assured a&
they knew the exact contrary.

This is not au 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 K*
man Catholics of England, as a body, have been eminently and omfi"
servedly loyal. But they have been as eminently noted for their tho^'
ough estrangement from Ultramontane opinions; and their clei^
down to the period of the Emancipation Act, felt with them ; thon^
a school addicted to eurialism and Jesuitism, thrnst among them by
the Popes at the commencement of the period, first brought npou them
grievous siiffenngs, then succeeded in attaching a stigma to their namej.
and now threatens gradually to accompUsh a transformation of their
opinions, witlt an eventual change in their spirit, of which it is difficult
to foresee the bounds. Not that the men who now hold the anceatnd
view will, as a rule, exchange it for the view of the Vatican ; bnt tbat)^
as in the course of nature tliey depart,VaticaniBts will grow up BOS'
take their places.

The fii-st oilicial head of the Anglo-Eomau body in England ivas thft
wise and loyal Ai-chpriest BlackwelL lie was deposed by the Popt-
in 1608, ' chiefly, it is supposed, for Lis advocacy of the Oath of AUer
giance,'^ which had been devised by King James, in order that he miglit
confer peace and security upon loyal Koman Catholics.^ Bellarjnul
denonnced, 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 tlie oath by a brief in October, 1606. The unfortun^
memhei-s of his communion could not believe this brief to be authentic'
So a second brief was sent in September, 1607, to confirm and enforce
tlie first, Blackwell gallantly advised his flock to take the oath in de-
fiance of the brief. Priests confined in Newgate petitioned the Pope
to have compassion on tliem. Forty-eight doctors of the Sorbonne

' Bishop Ullathorne, Letter, p. H.
' Butler, Biilorical Memoira, Tol. iii. p. 411.
' Ibid., vol. i. pp, 303 sqq, * Ibid., p. 31T„

THE VATICAN COUNCIL AST) INFALLIBILITY.

wnst Bis, declared that it miglit be taken with good conscience,
lid taken it was by many ; but taken in despite of the tyrannical i
iictiona of Panl V., nnLappily confirmed by Urban VIII. and by In-
|cent X.'

ten it was proposed, in 164S, to banish Roman Cathohcs on ao-
mnt of tlie deposing power, their divines met and renoimeed the doc-

Tiiis renunciation was condemned at Home as heretical ; bnt j
i attitude of France on these qnestiows at the time prevented the j
jHication of the decree.'

Yhcu the loyal remonstrance of 1661 liad been signed by certain \
iiofe and others of Ireland, it was condemned at Konie, in July,
13, by the Congregation de projpagandd ; and in the same month >
B Papal Nuncio at Brussels, who superintended the concerns of L'ish
[1 Catliohcs at the time, denounced it as already condemned by
& constitutions of Panl V. and Innocent X. ; and specially censured ,
b ecclesiastics who, by signing it, had misled the laity.*
tVell may Bntlei- say, ' The claim of the Popes to temporal power,
f divine riglit, has been one of the most calamitous events in the liia-
jr of the Church. Its effects since the Reformation, on the English
I Irish Catholics, have been dreadfid,'* And again: 'How often
I onr ancestors experience that ultra-catholicism is one of the worst

s of cr.tholicity !"i

The vigor of the mind of Dryden is nowhere more evident than i
I parts of his poems of controvei'sial theology ; and they are im-
rtaut, as exhibiting that view of Roman Catholic tenets which was
icnted at the time for the purposes of proselytlsm. lie mentions
pious opinions as to the seat of infallibility, describing that of the ,
J infallibility, with othera, as held by 'some doctors,' and statefi J
feat he considers to bo the trae doctrine of the Latin Church, as folIo^vB :J

'I then nffirm, thnt this unbiling guide
In Pope nnd general conneiU moel residfl,
liolh lawful, both c^omhineil; what aiic decrees.
By numerous voles, (he other intifies:
On (his nndouLtod sense the Church relies.''

' Buder, vol. i. p. 3,13.

■ Caroii, RemoxUranlia Hibtrtnorvm.

Ed.l731,p.T. Comp. Butler, Zfitl. JftMoirs, vd. \

' Caran. p. 4. Bmlor, vol. ii. p, 401-2.
' Buller, toI. i. p. 182.

' Ibid., vol, ii. p, 85 ; aho Tol. ii. p. 2
' Tke Hind and Panlher, pan ii.

30 VATICANISM. •^1^^

alone, Bisliop Ullatliorne says, ' Tlie Pope always wielded tliis infaQi'
bill^, and all men knew this to be the fact." We sUall presently Siji
some men, whose history the Uisliop should have been familiar w^
■who did not know this to be the fact, but very solemnly assured
they knew the exact contrary.

This is not an affair, as Dr. Newman seems to think, of a particnlar
generation of clergy who had been educated in GalUcan opinions. la
alt times, from the reign of Elizabeth to that of Victoria, the lay So-
man Catholics of England, as a body, have been eminently and mire-
SDrsedly loyal. Ent they have been as eminently noted for their tho^
ough estrangement from Ultramontane opinions ; and their cleigji
down to the period of the Emancipation Act, felt with them ; though
a school addicted to cnrialism and Jesuitism, thrnst among them fay
the Popes at \he commencement of the period, fii-st brought upon them
grievous snffei'iugs, then succeeded in attaching a stigma to their name^
and now threatens gradually to accomphsh a transformation of theii
opinions, with an eventual change in their spirit, of which it is difficaU
to foresee the bounds. Not that the men who now hold tho ancestral
view will, aa a rule, exchange it for the view of the Vatican ; bnt thati
as in the course of nature tliey depart, Vaticanists will grow up auA
take their places.

Tho firat official head of the Anglo-Roman body iu England was tlw
■wise and loyal Ai-chpriest Blackwell. lie was deposed by the Popa
hi 1608, ' chiefiy,it is supposed, for his advocacy of the Oath of Alia
giance,'^ which had been devised by King James, in order that he might
confer peace and security upon loyal Roman Catholics.^ Bellarmia
denounced, as lieretical, its denial of the power of the Pope to depose
the ICing and release his subjects from their allegiance. Pope Paul
V. condemned tlie oath by a brief in October, 1606, The unfortunate
membere of his communion could not believe this brief to be anthentie.'
So a second brief was sent in September, 1607, to confirm and enforce
the first. Blackwell gallantly advised his flock to take the oath in de-
fiance of the brief. Priests confined in Newgate petitioned the 1
to have compassion on them. Forty-eight doctors of the Sorbomie

' Bishop Uliathome, Letter, p. 14.
' BnUer, Hinlorical Memoirs, vol. iii. p. -ill.
■ IbiJ., vol. i. pp. 303 aim. * Ibid., p. 317.

I THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFAI.LIBILITY. 3«

Bainst bis, declared that it might be taken with good conaciencotH
kd taken it was by many ; but taken in despite of the tyrannical igS
fectiona of Paul V., nnhappily confirmed by Urban VIII. and by Iitfl
Icent X.> ■

FWhen it was pi-oposed, in 1648, to banish Eoman Catholics on a^|
lent of the deposing power, their divines met and ren<ninced the docsfl
Mne. This renunciation was condemned at Borne as heretical ; bafl
Be attitude of France on these qiiestioiis at the time prevented th^|
■blication of the decree.^ fl

■(When the loyal remonstrance of 1601 liad been signed by certaii^
fchops and others of Ireland, it was condemned at Rome, in July,
■62, by the Congregation de propagandd / and in the same month
fc Papal Nuncio at Brussels, who Buperintended the concerns of Irish
fcman Catlioiiea at the time, denounced it as already condemned by
B constitutiona of Paul V. and Innocent X ; and specially censured
Wk ecclesiastics who, by signing it, had misled the laity .^ ■ ■

■Well may Butler say, ' The claim of the Popes to temporal poweM
V divine right, has been one of the most calamitous events in the hi#<
WK of the Church. Its effects since the Eeformation, on the English
Id Irish Catholics, have been dreadful.' * And again ; ' IIow often
wA. our ancestors experience that ultra-catholicisra is one of the woi-st
nmies of cr.tliolicity!'* ■

■The vigor of the mind of Dryden is nowhere more evident tha4|
B parts of Ilia poems of controversial theology; and they _are ira-
fctant, as exhibiting that view of Roman Cathohc tenets which was
■esented at the time for the purposes of proselytism. He mentions
fcious opinions as to tlie seat of infallibility, describing that of th^
fcpe'a infallibility, with others, as held by 'some doctors,' and statefl
Bat he considers to be the tmo doctrine of the Latin Church, as folIowsS

■ 'I tlien nffirm, that ihis nofiiilinf; guide ^|

■ In Pope nnd gGaerd councils muse reside, ^B
^ Both la\vful, both combined,- nhat one ilecreea, ^|

By nnmeroua roiea, the oiher rntifies: ^|

On (his Dndoubted sense the Church relies.'* ^B

' Butler, vol. i. p. 3/12. ^|

' Caron, Remonstrantia Hibemoriim. Ed. 1731, p. 7. Comp, Buller, //is*. 3feBiDi"rs, Td^B
i. p. 18. ^

" Caron, p, i. Biiller, vol. il. p. 101-2. ' Ibid., vol. ii. p. S.1 ; iJso vol. ii. p. 20. H

' Butler, vol. i. p. 182. ' The Hind and Panther, part a ■

32 VATICANISM.

Wheiij in 1682, the Galliean Clmroh, by the first of its foar Arti-
cles, rejected the sophistical distinction of direct and indirect author-
itj, and absolutely denied the powei- of the Pope in temporals, to tiu8
article, says Butler, tliere was hardly a dissentient voice either clerical
or lay. He adds that this principle ia 'now adopted by the nnivereal
Catholic Church.' '

Sneli was the sad coudition of the Anglo-Roman body in the seven-
teenth century. They wore gi'ound between the demands of the civil
powei", stern, but substantially just, ou the one liaad, and tlie emel and
outrageous impositions of the Court of Kome on tlie other. Even iat
the shameful scenes associated with the name and time of Titus Gates
that Court is largely responsible: and the spirit that governed it in
regai'd to tlie Oath of Allegiance is the very same spirit which gained
its latest tiiumphs in tlie Council of the Vatican.

I now pass to the period'which followed tlie Revolution of 1688,
especially with reference to the bold assertion that before 1870 the
Pope's infallibility was a doctrine of Divine Faith. ■

The Revolution, bronght about by invasions of the law and the con-
stitution, with which 'the Church of Rome was disastrously associated,
necessarily partook of a somewhat vindictive character as towards the
Anglo-Eoman body. Our penal provisions were a mitigated, bnt also
a debased copy of the Papal enactments against heresy. It was noS
until 1757, on the appointment of the Duke of Bedford to the Lord-
Lientcnaney of Ireland, that the fii-st sign of life was given.* Indeed^
it was only in 1750 that a new penal law had been proposed in Ire-
land.' But in the next year tlie Irish Roman Catholic Committee
published a Declaration wliicli disavowed the deposing and absolving
power, with other odious opinions. Here it was averred that the Pope
bad 'no temporal or civil jurisdiction,' 'directly or indirectly, within
this realm.' And it was also averred that it ' is not an article of the
Catholic faith, neither are we thereby obliged to believe or profess that
the Pope is infallible :' in diametrical contradiction to the declaration
of Archbishop Manning that pereons of his religion were bound to
this belief before the Council of 1870.*

' BaUer, vol. i, p. 358, and vol. ii. p. 20.

' Biuler, vol. iv. p. fill. Sir H. Pamell, llistoiy if I he Pe,ml Luwi.

• Mndiien, Uiflnrieal Notice of the. Penal Lam: p. B.

* I cite tlie lorrnh of this doeiiinent from Tie Elector') Guide, iiiidrossed to Ilia frcelioldBrs

THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND IKFALLIBILrn-.

It may, indeed, be observed tliat in declai'iug tliey are not required
to believe the infallibility of tlie Pope, the Biibscribera to this document
do not say any thing to show that they did not for themselves hold the
tenet. But a brief explanation will sliow that the distinction in this
case is little better than futile. As we have seen, the Detlamtion set
forth that the Pope had no temporal power in England. Now in the \
notorious Bull U/tam Sanctam it had been positively declared e.
t/iedrd that both the temporal and the spiritual Bword were at the
command of the Church, and that it was the office of the Pope, by a
power not human, but divine, to judge and correct the secular author-
ity. The language of tlie Deelai'ation of 1757 was directly at variance
with the language of the Pope, speaking ex caihedrd, and tliei-efore
liere, if any where, infallible. It could, therefore, only have been con-
sistently used by pei-soua who for themselves did not accept the tenet
1 am aware it will be argued that the infallible part of the Bull is only
the last sentence. It ia well for those who eo teach that Boniface Villi
is not alive to hear them. The last sentence ia introduced by the woi-d
' Porro,' furthermore : a, strange substitute for ' Be it enacted.' The
true force of tliat sentence seems to be : ' Furthermore, we declare that
this subjection to the Roman Pontiff, as hereinbefore described, ia to
_ be held aa necessary for salvation.' It is not the substance, but an ad*-
litioD to the substance.
I If, however, any thing had been wanting in this Declaration, it woul^ \
[ve been abundantly supplied by the Protestation of the Roman Cath-
^cs of England in 178S-9. In this very important document, which
rought about the passing of the great English Relief Act of 1791,
aides a repetition of the assurances generally which had been there^
K>re conveyed, there are contained statements of the greatest sig^ j
£canc&
i i. That the subscribers to it ' acknowledge no infallibility in the 1

[9. That their Church has
tore Protestants, as all she

1 they do not want.
a. That no ecclesiastical power whatever

power that can directly or indirectly
1 do is to refuse them her sacraments,' , j

'directly or indirectly

^llieCoaDtfof York. Ho.l,p.++. York, I
~a'ft^t«(ory 0/ the Fenallawi. 1803.

34 VATICANISM. ^^M

aSect or interfere with the independence, stivereignty, laws, constitn-.
tion, or government' of the realm.

This Protestation was, in the strictest sense, a representative and
binding docament. It w^ eigned by two hundred and forty-one
priests,' including all the Vicars Apoatohc: hy all the clergy and laity
in Engknd of any note ; and in 1789, at a general meeting of tjie
English Catholics in London, it was subscribed by every person pi-esent.*

Thus we have on the part of the entire body of which Ai^chbighop
Manning is now the head' a direct, hteral, and unconditional rojectioH
of the cardinal tenet which he tella na has always been believed bj
his Church, and was an article of Divine Faith before as well as after
1870. Nor was it merely that the Protestation and tlie Relief coin-
cided in time. The protesters expHcitly set forth that the peual lawB
against them were founded on the doctrines imputed to them, and they
asked and obtained the reUef on the express ground that thej re-
nounced and condemned the doctrines.*

Some objection seems to have been taken at Rome to a portion (wB
are not told what) of the terms of the Protestation. The history coii-
neeted herewith is rather obscurely given in Butler. - But the Protes-
tation itself was, while the Bill was before Parliament, depc«ited 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 moml in-
tegrity,'* Two of the four Vicai-s Apostolic, two clergymen, and one
layman withdrew tlieir names from the Protestation on the deposit;
all the rest of the signatures i-emained.

Canon Flanagan's History of the Church in England impugns the
representative character of the Committee, and declares that the Court
of Rome approved of proceedings taken in opposition to it.^ But the

' Slater's Letters on ifoman Caiholic TenetR, p. 6.

• Bntler, Hist. Memoirs, tdI. ii. pp. 118, 126.

' Prelates reallj should remember that the; mny lead their trnstful lay foUowen into
strange predicamenta. Thus Mr. Townelej (of Towneley, I believe), in his letter otSov. 18 to
the London TVmu, dwells, I IisTeno doubt with petfect justice, on the loyally ofhis anceatota;
but, uuhnppily, goes an to assert that ' the Catholic Chnrch has always held ond taught th«
iniallibility of the Pope in matteis of faith and morals.' No ; the Roman Catholics of En'
gland denied it in their Protestation of 1 788-9 ; and on the list of the Committee which
prepared and promoted that Protestation I find the name of Fcregrino To^vneley, of Towns-
ley-— Ibid., Tol. ii. p, 30*.

• Bntler, Hiit. Memmri, vol. ii. pp. 119, 125.

• Ibid., voL ii. pp. 136-8. ' Finnagun, vol. ii. p. 38^^_

THE VATICAN COUNCn, AND IJiTFALLIBILITy.

material fact is the eubscription of the Protestation by the clergy and
laity at large. On this sobject he admits that it was signed by 'the
greater part of b<rth clergy and laity ;' ' and states that an organization
in opposition to the Committee, founded in 179i by one of the Vicare
Apostolic, died a natural death after ' a veiy few years.' ' The moat
significant part of the case, however, is perhaps this : that the work of
Flanagan, which aims at giviug a tinge of the new historical color to
the opinions of the Anglo-Koman body, was not published until 1857,
when things had taken an altogether new direction, and when the Eman-
cipation controvei-sies had been long at rest.

The Act of 1791 for England was followed by that of 1793 for Ire-
land. 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 Ihe Catholic Failh, r
39, that the Pope is inivillible.'

ir am I thereby required t(

I refer to this Oath, not because I attach an especial value to that
class of eecority, 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, ISIO, those Bishops declared as follows :

' That the said Onth, and ihe promises, declarationa, alguradons, and protestations therein
contained, are, notorioualg, to Ihe RomoH CalkoUc Church at iargf, become apart of iheRoma^
Catholic religion at langhl by ia Ihe Bishops and recaved and maintained by the lioman
Catholic Churches in Ireland; and as such are approved and lanclioTKd 6y the other Romaa
Catholic Churches.''

It will now, I think, have sufficiently appeared to the reader who has
followed this narration how mildly, I may say Iiow inadequately, I have
set forth in my former ti-act the pledges which were given by the au-
thorities of the Roman Catholic Church to the Crown and State of the
United Kingdom, and by means of which principally they obtained
tJie remission of the penal laws and admission to full civil equality.
We were told in England by the Anglo-Eomau Bishops, clergy, and
laitj tliat they rejected the tenet of the Pope's infalhbility. We were
told in Ireland that they rejected tlie doctrine of the Pope's temporal
power, whetiier direct or indirect, although the Pope had in the most

' Flanagan, vol. ii. p. 394. ' Slater dd Annan Catholic Tenets, pp. U, 15.

36 VATICANISM.

solemn and formal manner asserted his possession of it. We were also
told in Ireland that Papal infallibility was no part of the Eoman Catho-
lic faith, and never could be made a part of it; and* that the impossi-
bility of incorpomting it in their religion was notorious to the Soman
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
die declarations of the English and Irish prelates of the Papal com-
munion shortly afterward, are to be read. Here, then, is an extraordi-
nary fullness and clearaess of evidence, reaching over nearly two centu-
ries ; 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
Kome, as we know expressly with respect to merely the most important
of all these assurances, namely, the actual and direct repudiation of in-
fallibility in 1788-9. So that either that See and Court had at the '
last-named date, and at the date of the Synod of 1810, abandoned the
dream of enforcing infallibility on the Church, or else by willful silence
they were guilty of practicing upon the British Crown one of the black-
est frauds recorded in history.

The diflSculties now before us were fully foreseen during the sittings
of the Council of 1870. In the Address prepared by Archbishop Ken-
rickj of St. Louis, but not delivered, because a stop was put to the debate,
I find these words :

' Quomodo fides sic gubernio Anglicano data conciliari possit cum definitione papalis in-
fallibilitatis .... ipsi viderint qui ex Episcopis Hiberniensibus, sicut ego ipse, illad jora-
mentum prs&stiterint.'^ ,

* In what way the pledge thus given to the English Government can
be reconciled witli 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 of 1793. However, in Friedberg's
Sammlung der Actenstucke zum Condi, p. 151 (Tubingen, 1872), I find
it stated, I hope untruly, that the Civiltd Cattolica,iiie prime favorite of
Vaticanism, in Series viii. vol. i. p. 730, announced among those' who had
submitted to the Definition the name of Archbishop Kenrick.

• - •

* Friedrich; Doc. ad Illust. Cane, Vat, vol. i. p. 219.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBILITY. 37

; 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 .1798,
of 1810, of 1825-6,, the guilt of falsehood. I have not a doubt that
what they said they one and all believed. It is for. Archbishop Man-
ning and his confederates, not for me, to explain how these. things have
come about; or it is for Archbishop MacHale, who joined as, a Bishop
in the assurances of 1826, and who then stood in the shadow and recent
recollection of the Synod of 1810, but who now is understood to hiave
become a party, by promulgation, to the Decree of the, Pope's infalli-
bility. There are but two alternatives to choose between : on the one
side, that which I reject, the hypothesis of sheer peijury and falsehood ;
on the other, that policy of 'violence and change in faith' which I
charged, and stirred so much wrath by charging, in my former t^act. I
believed, and I still believe it to be the true, as well as the nailder ex-
planation. It is for those who reject it to explain their preference for
the other solution of this most curious problem of history.^

And now what shall we say to that coloring power of imagination '
with which Dr. Newman^ tints the wide landscape of these most intract-
able facts, when he says it is a pity the Bishops could not have antici-
pated the likelihood that in 1870 the Council of the Vatican would at-
tach 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, as
» fact notorious to themselves, and to the whole Roman Catholic world,
that the passing of such a decree was impossible.^ Let us reserve our
faculty of wonder for the letter of an Anglo-Roman, or, if he prefers it,
Romano- Anglican Bishop, who in a published circular presumes to term
'scandalous' the letter of an English gentleman, because 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 sernper eadem of which I am,
I fear, but writing the lamentable epitaph.

*Non bene conveniunt, nee in un^ sede morantur.'*

* See Appendices D and E. » Dr. Newman, p. 17. ^ See Appendix D.

* Lietter of Mr. Petre to the London Times of Nov. 15, 1874 j of Bishop Vaughan, Jan. 2, 1876.

* Ov. Metamorph,

VATICANISM.

This qnestion has been raised by me primarily as a British qi
and I hope that, so far as this country is eoncenied, I have done^l
thing to throw hght upon t]ie question whether Papal infallibilil
or was not matter of Divine Faith before 1S70 ; and consequei
the question whether tlie Vatican Decrees have 'in no jot or tit
tered the conditions of civil "allegiance in connection with this
bility.'

The declaration of the Irish prelates in 1810 was a fiill assni'anotf'
as that what they asserted for theii' country was also asserted for ^le
whole Romish world.

But as evidence has been produced which goes directly into antiqni-
ty, and arguments have been made to show how innocuous is the
fanglqd form'of religion, I proceed to deal with euch evidence and ar
gmneut in regai-d to my twofold contention against the Decrees —

1. In respect to infallibility.-

2. In respect to obedience.

IV. The Vatican Council and tiie Ikfallibilitt of the Pope.-
Continued.
Jireack with Jlistoi-y, Ifo. 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
stated that the Popes had kept up 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 argument, and thus the slip
of the pen once made escaped correction. Of the claim to a suprema-
cy virtually absolute, which I combined with the other claim, the state-
meiit ia ti-ue ; for tliis may be carried back, perhaps, to the ninth cent-
ury and Hie 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

' For a practical indication of tlie effect produced by the Bomau Catholic disclsimerB, now
deiluuiiL'Gd as 'Gcandalouii,' sec Appendix E.

THE VATICAN COtlNCIL AND INFAXUBILITY.

me to arise chiefly from its aptitude for combination with the other.
Ab matter of fact, the stability and great authority of tlie Itotuaii
Church in controversies of faith were acknowledged generally from an
early period. But the heresy of Honoriiis, to say nothing of other
Popes, became, from his condemnation by a Geneml Council, and by a
long Eeries of Popes as well as by other Councils, a matter so notori-
ous 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 jjerfectly famil-
iar to the general mind of Chi-isteudom. Uence in the Bull Cum
ex Aposiolatus Officio, Paul IV. declares (1559) that if a heretic is
chosen as Pope, all his acta shall be void ah initio. All Christians are
absolved from their obedience to him, and enjoined to have recourse to
the temporal power.' So likewise in tho Decretals theraselvea it is
provided that the Pope can only be brought to trial in 'case he is found
to deviate from the faith.'

It is an opinion held by great authorities tliat no pontiff before Leo
X. attempted to set up the infallibility of Popes as a dogma. Of the ci-
tations in its favor which are arrayed by Archbishop Manning in his
J^Ttvilegiuvi Petri,' I do not perceive any earlier than the thirteenth
eentnry which appear bo much as to bear upon the question,^ There
is no Coneiliary declaration, as 1 need scarcely add, of the doctrine.
This being so, the point is not of primary importance. The claim is
one tiling, its adoption by the Church, and the interlacing of it with a
like adoption of the claim to obedience, are another. I do not deny to
Ltlie opinion of Papal infallibility an active, tiiongli a checkered and in-
hermittent life exceeding sis centuries.

K Since, then, I admit that for so long a time the influences now tri-
Htopliant in the Roman Church have been directed towards tlie end
Biey have at last attained, and seeing that my statement as to the liber-
Kjr which prevailed before 1870 has been impugned, I am bound to of-
Ker some proof of that statement. I will proceed, in this instance as in
Btbers, by showing that my allegation is much within the truth : that
Kot only Lad the Latin Chiu'ch forborne to adopt the tract of Papal in-

H ' Von Schnlte, Power of the Popes, voL iv. p. 30.

B^ ■ 'Hujos culpss istic redorgoere prxsiiniil mortalium nuUus, qnie cttnctos ipse judicatorus

^BpemiDQ est judfcandaa, nui dtpreheadalur ajide devitu,' Deer, i. DiEt. si. c. ti,

^1 • Petri PrivikgiaiH, vol. ii, pp. 70-91.

40 VATICANISM.

fallibility, but that she was rather bound by consistency with her own
principles, as recorded in history, to repel and repudiate that tenet. I
refer to the events of the great epoch marked by the Council of Con-
stance. 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 dis-
cussion in the former tract, because it is necessarily tinctured with the-
ology ; 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 on^
another.

The first of them charged on Vaticanism that it had disinterred^
and brought into action the extravagant claims of Papal authority^
which were 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
Christian Creed : the two articles of the Immaculate Conception and
of Papal Infallibility ; with what is at least a new law of Christian
obligation — the 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. New-
man^ wonders that I should call the law absolute. I call it absolute
because it is without exception and without limitation.

To revive obsolete claims to authority, and to innovate in matter of
belief, are things perfectly compatible : we have seen them disastrous-
ly combined. In such innovation is involved, as I will now show, a
daring breach with history.

While one portion of the Roman theologians have held the infalli-
bility of the Pope, many others have taught that an (Ecumenical Coun-
cil, together with a Pope, constitutes per 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

^ Dr. Newman, pp. 45, 58.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBILITY. 41

even a Pope and a Council united could give the final seal of certain-
ty to a definition, and that for this end there was further necessary the
Banutiou, hy acceptance, of the Church diffused. Tiiia last opinion,
however, seems to have gone quite out of fashion ; and I now address
myself to the position in argument of those who hold that in the de-
cree of a Conneil, approved by tlie Pope, the character of infallibility
■■esidea.

JJoth the Conneil of Constance and the Council of the Vatican were
in the Roman sense (Ecumenical ; and it is this class of eonncils alone
tliat is meant where infallibility is treated of. I shall endeavor to be
brief, and to use the simplest language.

The Council of the Vatican decreed (chap. iiL) that the Pope had
from Christ immediate power over the universal Church (par. ii.).

That all were hound to obey him, of whatever rite and dignity, col-
lectively as well as individually (cujuscunque ritOs et dignitatia . . .
ta^n, aeoraum singuU, quam simul ojnnes. — Ibid.).

That this duty of obedience extended to all matters of faitli, of
Morals, and of the discipline and government of the Church (Ibid., and
paj-. iv.).

That in all ecclesiastical causes he is judge, without appeal or poe-
^t>ility of reversal (par. iv.). .

That the definitions of the Pope in faith and morals, delivered ex
^^^Aedrd, are irreforraable, and are invested with the infallibility grants
^ by Christ in the said subject-matter to the Church (chap. iv.).
■ ^ow let ua turn to the Council of Constance.

Ibis Council, supported by the following Council of Basle befoi'e
its translation to Ferrara, had decreed in explicit terms that it had
^om Christ immediate power over the univereal Church, of which it
^aa the representative.

That all were bound to obey it, of whatever state and dignity, even

' ^ 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

>t8 membcTB.'

la conformity herewith, the Counci] of Constance cited, aa being it-

^If a superior authority, three Popes to its bar. Gregory XII. antici-

1 Labbe, Coaeilia, vol. xii. p. 22, ed. Paris, 1672.

42 VATICANISM.

pated his sentence by resignation. Benedict XIII. was deposed, $&
was Jolin XXIIL, for divers crimes and offenses, but not for bere^.
Having thus made void the Papal Ohair, the Council elected thereto
Pope Martin V.

It is not my object to attempt a general appreciation of the CouncQ
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 diametricai contradiction to those of the Vatican.

This of itself would not constitute any diflSculty for Boman theolo-
gy, 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 Boman Church, if two of her Councils, contradicting one another
in the siibject-matter of faith or morals, have eacli respectively been
confirmed by the Pope, and have thus obtained, in Boman eyes, the
stamp of infallibility. Now this is what I charge in the present in-
stance.

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 Ses-
sion which asserted its power, given by Christ, over the Pope. Bishop
UUathome says :

* Although the mode of proceeding in that Council was really informal, inasmuch as its
members yoted by nations, a portion of its doctrinal decrees obtained force through the dog-
matic Constitution of Martin Y. ' ^

Here it is plainly implied that the Decree of the Fifth Session was
not confirmed. And I have res^d in some Ultramontane production
of the last three months an exulting observation that the Decrees of

* ExpoatulaHon Unraveled, p, ^2.

THE VATICAN COUMCIL ANU INTALLIBILITY.

43'

the Fourth and Fifth Sessions wei-e not confirmed by the Pope, and
that thus, I presume like the smitten tig-tree, they have remained a
de&d letter. Let iib examine this allegation ; but not that other state-
meat of Arclibishop Manniug that the proceeding was null from the
nnlli tj of tlie assonibly, the irregidarity of the voting, and the hetero-
doxy of the mattur.' The Pope's continnation covers and disposes of
ail tliesc arbitrary pleas. Whether it did so or not, is to be tried by
iJie evidence of authoritative documents.

In the record of the Council of Constance we are told that, in its
Fofty-lifth Session, the Pope declared, not that he confirmed a part of
Its tloctrinal decrees, but 'that he would bold and inviolably observe,
nicl never counteract in any manner, each and all of the things which
"lo Council bad in full assembly determined, concluded, and decreed
"1 matters of faith (m maieriis Jtdei).'^ And lie approves and ratifies
^^ordingly.

Embracing all the decrees described in its scope, this declaration is

'^ touc as much an adhesion, as a confinuation by independent or eu-

l**^or authority. But let that pass. Evidently it gives all that the

■<*I)e liad in bis power to give.

^he only remaining question is, whether the Decree of the Fifth

iion was, or was not, a decree of faith t
^^ow npou this question there are at least two independent lines of
lunent, each of which, respectively and separately, is fatal to tlio Ul-
laiontane eoiltention: this conteulion being that, for want of the coii-
^^•tation of Pope Martin V,, that Decree fell to the ground.

3?irst : Pope Martin V, derived his whole power to confirm from his
^'^<;tiou to the Papal Chair by the Council. Aud the Council was corn-
Patent to elect, because the See was vacant. And the See was vacant,
^^^sauae of the depositions of the three rival Popes ; for if the See was
ly vacant before, there had been no Pope since the schism of 1378,
Jch is not supposed by either side. But the power of the Council to
kte the See was in virtue of the principle asserted by the Decree of
Fifth Session. We arrive then at the following dilemma. Either
i«t Decree had full validity by the confirmation of the Pope, or Mar-
the Fifth was not a Pope ; the Cardinals made or confirmed by him

' Petri Pricilpijinvi, H !
' Libbe, Conciiia, vol. I

See Appeodiii IT fur the most imponnnt passages.

44 VATICANISM.

were not Cardinals, and conld not elect validly his snccessor, Eugen
IV. ; so that the Papal succession has failed since an early date in th
fifteenth century, or more than four hundred and fifty years ago.

Therefore the Decree of the Fifth Council must upon Bonian princi-
ples have been included in the raaterice fidei determined by the Couii_—
cil, and was confirmed by Pope Martin V. .

But again. It has been held by some Eoman writers that Pop^
Martin V. only confirmed the Decrees touching Faith ; that the Decree
of the Fifth Session did not touch Faith, but only Church-government^,
and that accordingly it remained unconfirmed.

Now in the Apostles' Creed, and in the Nicene Creed, we all express
belief in the Holy Catholic Church. Its institution and existence are
therefore strictly matter of faith. How can it be reasonably contend-
ed that the organized body is an article of faith, but that the seat of its
vital, sovereign power, by and from which it becomes operative for be-
lief and conduct, belongs to the inferior region of the ever mutable
discipline of the Church ?

But this is argument only ; and we have a more sure criterion at
command, which will convict Vaticanism for the present purpose out
of its own mouth. Vaticanism has effectually settled this question as
against itself ; for it has declared that the Papal Infallibility is a
dogma of Faith (divinitus revelatum dogma^ ' Const.' ch. iv.). But
if by this definition, the infallibility of the Pope in definitions of faith
belongs to the province of materiod fidei and of ea quae pertinent ad
fidem^ the negative of the proposition thus affirmed, being in the same
subject-matter, belongs to the same province. It therefore seems to
follow, by a demonstration perfectly rigorous —

1. That Pope Martin V. confirmed (or adopted) a Decree which de-
clares the judgments and proceedings of the Pope, in matters of faith,
without exception, to be reformable, and therefore fallible.

2. That Pope Pius IX. confirmed (and proposed) a Decree which
declares certain judgments of the Pope, in matters of faith and morals,
to be infallible; and these, with his other judgments in faith, morals,
and the discipline and government of the Church, to be irreformable.

3. That the new oracle contradicts the old, and again the Eoman
Church has broken with history in contradicting itself.

4. That no oracle which contradicts itself is an infallible oracle.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND INFALLIBITY. 45

5. That a so-called (Ecumenical Council of the Roman Church, con-
firrxied or non-confirmed by the Pope, has, upon its own showing, no
va,lid 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.
Bizi^-ft for the present I leave my assertion in this matter to stand upon —

H. The case of the Koman Catholics of the United Kingdom before
1SS9.

S. The Decrees of the Council of Constance, compared with the
Decrees of the Council of the Vatican.

»

'When these assertions are disposed of, it will be time enough to
pi si^ce others in the rank. I. will now say a word on the cognate sub-
jec:^! of Gallicanism, which has also b6en brought upon the carpet.

It would be unreasonable to expect from Archbishop Manning
giT^ater accuracy in his account of a foreign Church than he has ex-
hibited with regard to the history of the communion over which he
eti.^rgetically presides.

-As the most famous and distinct of its manifestations was that ex-
hibited in the Four Articles of 1682, it has pleased the Archbishop to
ioaagine, ritid imagining to state, that in that year Gallicanism took its
rise. Even with the help of this airy suppositioh, he has to admit
ttiat in the Church where all is unity, certainty, and authority, a doc-
trine contrary to divine faith, yet proclaimed by the Church of France,
w'as, for want of a General Council, tolerated for one hundred and
©^ghty-eight years. Indeed, he alleges^ the errors of the Council of
Constance, four hundred and sixty years ago, as a reason for the Coun-
cil of the Vatican. '

^Nor were Catholics free to deny his infallibility before 1870. The
^^iiial of his infallibility had indeed never been condemned by a defi-
^^tion, because since the rise of Gallicanism in 1682 no (Ecumenical
^-^nncil had ever been convoked.'^

I will not stop to inquire why, if the Pope has all this time been in-

^Hible, a Council was necessary for the issuing of a definition ; since

^^ are now on matters of history, and the real diflSculty would be to

^ow where to dip into the prior history of France without finding

* Petri Privilegium^ ii. 40.

* Letter to Macmillan's Magazine, Oct. 22, 1874.

t

46 VATICANISBl

matter in utter contradiction to the Archbishop's allegation. An
glo-Eoman writer has told us that in the year 1612 [query 1614?] tlm^
assembly of the Gallican Church declared that the power of the Pop^^
related to spiritual matters and eternal life, not to civil concerns ancS
temporal possessions.' In the year 1591, at Mantes and Qiartres, th.^
prelates of France in their assembly refused the order of the Pope t43
quit the king, and on the 21st of September repudiated his Bulls, a^
being null in substance and in form.^ It has always been understood
that the French Church played a great part in the Council of Ooa—
stance : is this also to be read backward, or effaced from the records 9
Or, to go a little farther back, the Council of Paris in 1393 withdrei^"
its obedience altogether from Benedict XIII., without transferring i*
to his rival at Home ; restored it hpon conditions in 1403 ; again with.-^
drew it, because the conditions had not been fulfilled, in 1406 ; and so
remained until the Council of Constance and the election of Martin V.^
And what are we to say to Fleury, who writes :

' Le concile de Constance ^tablit la maxime de tout temps enseign€e en France^ que tooC^
Pape est soamis au jugement de tout concile uniyersel en ce qui conceme la foi.'*

One of the four articles of 1682 simply reafiirms the decree of Con*
stance ; and as Archbishop Manning Eas been the first, so he will prob-
ably 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 Gallican liberties entei*ed into the ideas and in-*
stitutions of England, Germany, and even Spain. Neither will I dweQ
on the manner in which the decrees of Constance ruled for a time not
only the minds of a school or party, but the policy of the Western
Churcli 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 Pi^Hd aa-r
thority which distinguished the Gallican Church, and is embraced, I presume, by almost all
laymen, and the major part of ecclesiastics, on this side the Alps.'^

^ Cited in Slater's Letters, p. 23, from Hook's Prindpia^ iii. 577.
■ Continuator of Fleury, Hist, Eccl., xxxvi., 337 (Book 169, ch. 84).
' Dn Chastenet, Nouvelle Histaire du Cone de Constance (Preface) ; and Preuves, ppw 79^
84 sqq., 96, 479 (Paris, 1718).

* Fleury, Nouv, Opusc, p. 44, cited in Demaistre, Du Pope, p. 82. See also Fleary, Hist.
EccL (Book 102, ch. 188).

* Hist, qf the Middle Ages, ch. vii. part 2.

^B OBEDIENCE TO TSE POPE. 47- J

^H V. TiiE Vatican CocsctL and Obedience to the Pope. '

^^m ArohbiBhop MamiLiig lias boldly grappled with my proposition that
^^■n Third Chapter of the Vatican Decrees had f oi^d new chains for
^^ne ClinBtian people, in regard to obedience, by giving its authority to
^Hpmt was previously a claim of the Popes only, and go making it a
^Kaim of the Church. He is astonished at the statement : and he offers'
I wliat lie thinks a sufficient confutation of it in six citations.

The four last of these begin with Innocent III., and end with the-l

fuimcil of Trent, Innocent III. and Sixtus IV. simply claim the re^

immi, or government of the Church, which no one denies them. The

Coum^il of Florence speaks oi plena j>o{estas, and the Council of Trent

yf mjjreuia potestaa, as belonging to the Pope. Neither of these as-

I BertbuB touch the point Full power, and supreme power, in the goii^'l

I MTiment of a body, may still be limited by law. No other power can- '

''e ahove them. But it does not follow that they can command from

■'U persons an unconditional obedience, unless themselves empowered

^'y law fio to do. We are familiar, nnder the British monarchy, both

^'ith the term supreme and with its limitation. _

The Archbishop, however, quotes a Cation or Chapter of a Romsa.^

C-onncil in 863, which anathematizes all who despise the Pope's orders' '

W'ith much breadth and amplitude of phi-ase. If taken without the

"oniext, it fully covers the ground taken by the Vatican Council. It

ft-nstlieniatizes all who contemn the decrees of the Roman See in faith,

disciplipe, or correction of manners, or for the remedy or prevention of

wisehicf. Considering that the four previous Canoiis of this Council,

^^'d the whole proceedings, relate entirely to the case of the Divorce

**i lothair, it might, perhaps, be argued that the whole constitute only

^ l^rivilegium, or law for the individual ease, and that the anathema

"* tlie Fifth Canon must be limited to those who set at naught the

*^**pe's proceedings in that case. But the point is of small consequence

^ 'Oy argument

lint then the Roman Council is local, and adds no very potent i-ein* I
**'fceinent to the sole authority of the Pope, The question then pe^.l
"^^ios how to secure for this local and Papal injunction the sanction \

' Archbishop UBnning, pp. 12, IS.

of the Fnivereal Chnreh, in the Roman sense of the word. Archl>i^
op Manning, perfectly sensible of what is required of him, writes tj
'tliis Canon was recognized in the Eighth General Council hel4 i
Couatautinopio in 869.' He is then more than contented with this i
ray of proofs ; and, coniiniug himself, as I ani bound to say he does
all personal matters throughout Jiis work, to the mildest language co
sistent with the full expression of ilia ideas, he observes that I am met
ifestly out of my depth,' ;

I know not the exact theological value of the term * recognized
but I conceive it to mean virtual adoption. Such an adoption of so.*
a claim by a General Council appeared to me a fact of the utmost sx
nificanee. I referred to many historians of the Church : but I fou*
no notice of it in those whom I consnlted, including Baronius. Frw|
these unproductive references I went onwards to the original docnmenl

The Eighth General Conncil, so eallod, comprised only those Eis!
ops of the East who adliered to and were supported by the See 4
lionie and the Patriarch Ignatius in the great conflict of the ninJ
century. It would not, therefore, have been eni-prisiug if its caooi
had given some at least equivocal sanction to the high Papal claini
But, on the contrary, they may be read with the greatest interest G
showing, at the time immediately bordering on the publication of tU
false Decretals, how little way those claims had made in the genen
body of the Church. The system which they describe is tlie Fatn
archal, not the Papal system ; the fivefold distribution of the Chrii
tian Church under the five great Sees of the Elder and the Nei
Kome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Of these the Pope a
Eome is the first, but as primita inter pares (Canons XVII., XXI
Lat.}.' The causes of clergy on appeal are to be finally decided b
the Patriarch in each Patriarchate (Canon XXVI., Lat.) ;^ and it is d(
clared that any General Council has authority to deal, but should de^
respectfully, with controversies of or touching the Roman Church il
self (Canon XXI. Lat., XIH. Gr.).* This is one of the Councils whid
solemnly anathematizes Pope Honorina as a heretic.

' Arclibiahop Miinning, Fafwan Deerea, pp. 12, 13.
' I.RhbB (ed. I'aiiB, 1071), vol. x. pp. 1186, 1140.

^

OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE. 49

Ihe reference made by Archbishop ManniDg is, as he has had the
goodness to inform me, to the Second Canon.* The material words
ar^ these:

^ Xtegarding the most blessed Pope Nicolas as an organ of the Holy Spirit, and likewise
his :Enost holj snccessor Adrian, we accordinglj define and enact that all which they have set
oat; and pron^nlgated synodically from time to time, as well for the defense and well-being
of ^lie Chorch of Constantinople, and of its Chief Priest and most holv Patriarch Ignatius,
as U.l:ewise 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
(ctA^^z expositis capitulia),^

Tliere is not in the Canon any, thing relating- to the Popes generally,
but only to two particular Popes; nor any reference to what they did
p^i-sonally, but only to what they did synodically ; nor to what they
did synodically in all matters, but only in the controversy with Pho-
tlns 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
wa^ a Council having nothing to do with tiie Photian controversy, but
called for the purpose of supporting Pope Nicholas L in what is com-
monly deemed his righteous policy with respect to the important case
of the Divorce of Lothair.^

So that the demonstration of the Archbishop falls wholly to the
gi^onnd ; and down to this time my statement remains entire and nn-
Ji'curt The matter contained in it will remain very important until
tJ^e Council or the Pope shall amend its decree so as to bring it into
conformity with the views of Dr. Newman, and provide a relief to the
Private conscience by opening in the great gate of Obedience a little
w^ickefrdoor of exceptions for those who are minded to disobey.

3Had the Decrees of 1870 been in force in the sixteenth and seven-
teenth centuries, Eoman Catholic peers could not have done what, un-
W the reign of Charles IL, they did; could not have made their way
te the House of Lords by taking the oath of allegiance, despite the
I^ope's coHunand. But that is not alL The Pope ex cathedrd had
**idden the Eoman Catholics of England in the eighteenth century,
*'?^d in the sixteenth, and from the fourteenth, to believe in the De-

^ Iltid. p. 1127 Lat, p. 1367 Gr. ; where the reader sboold be on bis guard against the
^^^Q version, and look to the Greek originaL
See the original in A|ypeDdix G.
Labbe, toL z. pp. 766 sqq.

D

60 VATICASISM.

posing jKiwer as an avtitle of faitli. But they rejected it; and fcl
Iiigliest law of tbelr Cliurcli left them free to reject it, lias it r*'
bonnd them now ? The Pope in the sixteenth centnry bade tlie JrC^
man Catholics of England assist the invasion of the Spanish Arma(3-i
They disobeyed liim. The highest law of their Church left them fi-*
to disobey. Are they free now I That they will assert this freedo 3
for Uiemselves I do not question — nay, I entirely believe. From eve^c
standing-point, except that of Vaticanism, their title to it is perfect
"With Vaticanism to snpply their premise, how are they to coiicludi
Dr. Newman says there are exceptions to this precept of obedience
But this is just what tlie Council has not said. The Church bj tliff
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 smaek of Protestantism. To reconcile Dr. New-
man's conclusion with the premises of the Vatican will eureiy reqnire
all, if not more than all, 'tlje vigilance, acnteness, and subtlety of the
Sc/iola T/ievlogomm."

Tlie days of such proceedings, it is stated, are gone by; and I be-
lieve that, in regard to our country, they have passed away beyond re-
call. But that is not the present question. The present qnestion is
whether the right to perform such acts has been efltectiially disavowed.
"With this question 1 now proceed to deal.

VI. Revived Claims of toe P.^PAL Cdaie.

1. The Deposing Power. "

2. T/te 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, license tlie
Syllabns of teaching the right of the Chnrch to use Force, and of main-
taining the Deposing power. ^

When my tract was published, I had little idea of the extent to whidi,
and (as to some of them) the hardihood with which, those who should

EEVIVED CLAIMS OF THE PAPAL CHAIR. 51 ■

s confuted my chai-ges would theinselves supply evidence to austaia'S

bishop Clifford, indeed, snstains the deposing power ou the gronnd,B
t it was accoi-ded to the Pope by tlie nations. It was simply a
i that of the Geneva Arbitrators.' Dr. Newman^ defends it, but J
r upon conditions. The circumstances must be rare and criticaL A
eeding must be judicial. It must api'^al to the moral law. j
Sily, there must be a united consent of various nations. In fine,: J
!; Newman accepts the deposing power only imder^ the conditional
ich, as he thinks, the Pope himself lays down.

e allegations quiet my feare ; but they strain m/ faith ; and, pur- I
fting to be historical, they shock my judgment. For they are, ■
■ak plainly, without foundation. The Arbitrators at Geneva settled
a dispute, which they recited in formal terms, that the two parties to it I
Jiad empowered and invited them to settle. The point of consent is' J
"the only weighty one among the four conditions of Dr. Newman, and' i
is the sole point raised by Bishop Cliffoi-d. Did, then, Paul IIL, as ar-
"bitrator in the case of Henry VIII., pursue a like procedure ? The first I
"words of his Bull are, 'The condemnation and excommnuication of; I
Henry VIIL, King of England :' not an auspicious beginning. There'J
is nothing at all about arbitration or consent of any body, but a solemn' j
and fierce recital of power received from God, not from the nations, <
from one nation, or from any fraction of a nation ; power ' over the i
nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to destroy, to build np J
and to plant, as chief over all kings of the whole earth, and all peopled"!
possessing rule.' Exactly similar is the ' arbitration ' of Pius V. betweWj
oimself and Elizabeth to the 'arbitration' of Paul III. between him- ,
Self and Henry VIII.

Archbishop Manning, indeed, has thro^vn' in a statement, the utility 1
of which it is hard to understand, that Queen Elizabeth ' was baptized .1
^ Catholic' She was baptized after Appeals to Kome had beeu abot J
ished, and two years after the Clergy had owned in the King that title I

' Pattoral Letter, p. 12.

I Dr. Newman, pp. 36, 37.
Archbishop Manning, p. 83. See llie Anathemas of the Council of Trent ngainst those J
I deny thnt heretics, o^being baptixed persons, are bound to obedience to the Chareb,
S tha Arcliliiahop hSa not iiicflntioiisly incurred Ihem.

53 VATICANISM.

of Headship -wliicii Mary abolisbed, and which never has been revived-
But Archbishop Manning knows quite well that the Papal claims o~
right extend to all baptized persona whatever, and Qaeen Victoria
could have no exemption unless it could be shown that she was un
baptized.

The docti'ine of the consent of natibns is a pure imagination. The
general truth of the matter is that the Popes of the Middle Ages, like
some otiier peisons and professions, throve upon the discords of theii'
neighbors. Other powei-s were only somewhere : the Pope, in the
West, was every where. Of the two parties to a quai-rel, it was worth
the while of each to bid for the asBistanco of the Pope against hia en-
emy ; and he that bid the highest, not merely in dry acknowledgment
^f the Papal prerogatives, but also commonly in the solid tribute of
Peter's ^wnce or pati-onages, or other tangible advantages, most com-
monly got the support of tlie Pope. This is a brief and rude outline ;
but it is history, and the other is fiction.

But does Dr. Newman stand better at this point? He only gTalitft
the deposing power in the shape in which the Pope aska it; and ho'
saja the Pope only asks it on the conditions of which one is ' a united-
consent of Yarioiis nations." In the Speech of the Pope, however,
which he cites, there is nothing corresponding to this account. The
ipope says distinctly, 'of this right the Fountain is (not the Infallibil-
ity, but) the Pontifical Anthority.' The people of the Middle Ages —
what did they do ! made him an arbitrator or judge ? No : but recog-
nized in him that which — what? he was? no: but — 'lie IS; the Su-
I>feme Judge of Christendoni.' The right was not created, but ' as-
sisted, as was DIXE to it, by the public law and common consent of
the nations.' H this is not enough, I will complete the demonstration.
An early report of tlie Speech^ from the Roman newspapers winds up
the statement by describing the Deposing Power as^

lied bg Ihe call of Iht nations, had to eierdie, when t!iO gen-

Piit in the authorized and final report' given in the Collection of
the Speeches of Pius IX., this passage is corrected, and runs thus :

' BiKora di Pio IX. vol. i. p. 2

REVIVED CL^ilMS OF TEE PAPAL ClUIIt.
A riglit which the Popes eiercised in drlae of their avthorilg when l!ie general fioo J cii>-

I Tiins Eisiiop Cliffoiil aiij Dr. Xewinan are entirely at issue witli iLc
pope cespectiug tlie deposing power. Will tbey not ha\e to reconsider
pint they are to say, and what they are to believe? That power, it
Imst be borne in mind, appeai-s to have one of the firmest possible
pontifical foundations in the Bull Uiiavi Sanciam, wliich is admitted
in sll Iiaiida to be a declaration ex cathedrd.
Eut it is not to the more moderate views of tlie Bishop and Dr.
^'ewinan that we are to resort for information on the ruling fashions
of Roman doctrine. Among the really orthodox dcfendera o£ Vati-
canism, who have supplied the large majority of Reproofs and Replies.
I do not recollect to have found one single disavowal of the deposing
power. Perhaps the nearest approach to it from any writer of this
school is snpphed by Monsignor Capel, who remarks that the Pope's of-
tice of arbiter is at an end, or ' at least iVi abeyance^^ Tliei-e are, in-
deed, enough of disavowals wliolly valueless. For example, disavowal I
of the univereal monarehy ; by whicli it appears to he meant that the '
Popes never claimed, in temporals, such a. raonarcliieal power as is n«w
accorded to them in spirituals, namely, a power absorbing and eompre-
iiending every other power whatever. Or, again, disavowals of the
directa poiestas. Por one, I attach not a feather's weight to the dis-
tinetion between the direct power and the indireet. Speaking in his
K<Hm person. Archbishop Manning eschews the gross assertions to which
( another work he has, lent a sanction,^ and seems to tliink he has
i&ded tlie position wlien he tells ns that the Clmroh — that is to say
9 Pope — ' has a supreme judicial office, in respect to the moi"al law,
■ all nations and over all persons, both governors and governed.'
s long as they do right, it is directive and preceptive; when tiiey do
■oog, tlio black cap of the judge is put on, ratione j^eccati, ' by re^ _
I of sin.' 'That is to say, in plain words, the right and the wrong u
3 conduct of States and of individuals is now, as it always has been, a ■

' Tablet original (for which I nm not reaponsihle); ' Un diritto, eho i Pnpi, (kiamati
'» tla jiopoli, dopetlfro rstreilure quando il comun bene lo domnndaro.' Anthmzed oi
'Bn diritto che iPapi eierdtarano »n virtu della laro -iu/oriVo, qunn Jo il conmri bene

■ Dr. Cnpel, p. 60.

B..£i>*i>j'(, «tc. Edited by Arclibishop Maamng. Louden.

54 VATICANISM. ^H^^^

matter for the judicial cognizance of the Church; and the entire judi-
cial power of the Church is summed up in the Pope :

' If Christian princes and their laws deviate from tlie law of God, [be Church has authority
from' God to jud)^ of chat deviation, nod bg bU its paiBeri to enforce the corceclion of that
departure frani justice."

I must accord to the Archbishop the praise of manliness. If we are
(leiicefoi-ward in any doubt as to hia opinions, it is by our own fault. I
sorrowfully believe, moreoTcr, that he does no more than express the
general opinion of tlie teachers who form the ruling body in his
Church at lai^e, and of the present Anglo-Komisli clergy ahntet with-
out exception. In the episcopal manifesto of Bishop Ullathonie I see
nothing to qualify the doctrine. In the Pastoral Letter of Bishop
Vaughan tlie comfort we obtain is this — ' it will never, as we believe,
be exercised again ;' and ' it is a question purely speculative. It is no
matter of Catholic faith, and is praperly relegated to the schools."
Bishop Vaughan does not appear to bear in mind that this is exactly
wliat we were told, not by his predecessors of 1789, who denied Infalli-
bility outright: not by the Synod of 1810, who aflinned it to be im-
possible that Infallibility ever could become an article of faith ; but
even in tlie ' bated breatli ' of later times with respect to Infallibili^
itself, whicJi, a little while after, was called back from the schools and
tlie speculative region, and uplifted into the list of the Christian ere-
denda ; 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 traiti of the Bishops (I except Bishop Clifford) come priests,
monks, nay, laymen: Vaticanism in all its ranks and oi'dera. And
among these champions not one adopts the language even of Bishop
DoylCj much less of 1810, much less of 1789. The ' Monk of St Au-
gustine's ' is not ashamed to say that Bishop Doyle, who was put for-
ward in his day as the champion and representative man of the body,
■ held opinions openly at i^ariance with those of the great mass.' ^

' Arehbishop Matiniog, Vatican Decrca, pp. 49-[il.
' Pastoral Leller, pp. 33, 3i.

'See Tie Month, Jan. 18TB, pp. 82-Bi. Monh of St. Auffialinc'i, pp. 27 Eqq. Rev. J.
Curry's DistjaUitiun, pp. 3j, <1. Lord R. Blonlaga, Ejpoilulalion iit tilreiiiis, p. 51.

^H KEVIVED CLAIMS OF THE PAl'AL CHAIR. ^J^^^|

^^V 3. Title to the Use of Force. ^^^I^^l

■ Eqnally clear, and equally unsatiBfactory, are the Ultpamontane dee-
iai-ations with respect to the title of tho Cliiirch to employ foree. Dr,
Newiiian holds out a hand to brethren in distress by showing tliat a
theolfigical anthority, who inclines to the milder side, limits the kind
of force which the Chiireh has of herself a right to employ, ' The
lighter pnnislinicnts, thongli temporal and corporal, siieli as shutting
up in a monastery, prison, flogging, and others of tlie same kind, short
[if effusion of blood, tlie Chnrcli,/if?'e" suo, can inflict.' ' And again :
the Cliiireb doee not claim the use of force generally, but only tltatA
nse of force which Professor Nnytz denied. ^

We can from this source better understand the meaning of Areli- '
lieliop Manning, when lie states" that the Chnreh has authority from
God to correct departures from jnstice by the nse of 'all its jTOwera.'
Tbii favorite mode of conveying this portion of trutli — 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 ]jerfect in
and by itself, and amply sufficing not only to bring men to, salvation
niid everlasting bliss, but also to eetabllsh and perfectly i-egnlate social
life among theiti.' ^ The Church has been created, says Bishop Yauglian,
a ' jierfcct society or kingdom,' ' with full authority in the triple oi'der,
as needful for a perfect kingdom, legislative, judicial, and coercive. ' *
Uifl Matropolitan treats tlio subject at some length ; assures us that the
laemlicra of his commnnion would not make use of force if they were
able, but nowhere diselaitna the right.' Indeed, he can not : ho dai'es
not. The inexorable Syilabus binds him to maintain it, as Ixion
was bound to hia wheel.

Ilie subject, however, is one of the burning class ; and it appears to
terrifj' even Archbishop Manning, lie refem na to the famous brief
or letter of Innocent III., headed Novit, in his Appendix, where he
tetcs lliat the text is given in fnll,* In the document, as it is there

' Cnl'dinal Soglin, as cited by Dr. Newman, pp. 8D, 91).

' Valicau Decree!, p. 43.

' Martin, S. J., De Matrimomo, Naltonea Praviit, p. ci.

' I'aatoral Letter, p. 13.

■ See Appendix 11.

* Arclibiahop Manning, p. G2, n.

56 VATICA2C1SJI. ^M

given, will be found tlie Pope's assertion that it is Lis part to pass
judgment on Bovereigns in respect of sin {ratione peccait}, and that he
can coerce them by ecclesiastical constraint {distnctionem). 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 nso of
force:

' The Ajiostte niso admonishes ns to robake dislarbers ; and elsewhere be says, ' ' reprore,
intreat, rebake with oil |)atiencc and doctrine." Kow that ve are aUt, and also liound lo co-
erce, ia plain from this, tlint the Lord eays to the Prophet, who waa one of the priests of An-
uthaih : " Behold, I have appointed tlice orer the nations and the kings, that thgn majeu
tear iip, and pull down, and scatter, and build, und plant.'"'

Witii regard to Dr. Newman's limitation of the Proposition, I mast
cite an authority certainly higher in the Papal sense. The Jesuit
Sclu-ader has published, with a Papal approbation attached, a list of
the affirmative propositions answering to the negative condemnations
of the Syllabus, I extract his Article 24 : *

'The Church has the poner to apply external coercion (nOH^rea Z-mang amuietndeii):
she has also a temporid aulhority direct and iadirett.'

The remark is appended, 'Not souls aloue are subjecj to Jier author-

itj.'

All, then, that I stated in the Expostulation, on the Deposing Pow-
er, and on the claims of the Homan Chureh to employ force, js more
than made good.

It was, I suppose, to put what Burnet would call a face of propriety
on these and such like tenets, tliat one of the combatants opposed to me
in the present controversy has revived an ingenious illustratiou of that
clever and able writer, the late Cardinal Wiseman, lie held that cer-
tain doctrines present to ua an unseemly appearance, because we stand
outside the Papal Chm-cli, evcTi as the most beantifid wiudow of stained
glass in a chureh offers to those without only a confused congeries of
paint and colors, while it is to an eye riewing it from within all gloiy

' Corjiut Juris Cannnici Decret. Greg. IX., II. i. 18. I cite from Hichtar'a ed. (Leipdc,
1S39). It has all the pretensions of a critical and cnrefiU editioo. 1 do not however pre-
anme to determine the textual question.

■ Schrader, as abare, p. Bi.

f

WAREIANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 57

and all beauty. But 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 arrangement
chaotic ; but if we will part with a great portion of that light by pass-
ing within the walls of a building made by the hand of man, then, in-
deed, 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 op Allegiance according to the Vatican.

1. Its Alleged Superiority,

2. Its Beal Flaws.

3. Alleged Non-interference of the Popes for Two 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 better warranty than ours, and this because they are guided by

an infallible Pope, instead of an erratic private judgment; and because

the Pope himself is exceedingly 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.'^ 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.

The inculcation of civil obedience under the sanction of religion is,
so far as I am aware, the principle and practice of all Christian com-
mrniitiesL We must therefore look a little farther into the matter in
order to detect the distinctive 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 ever been the extravagantly
loyal Church ; I n^an which has, in other days, exaggerated the doc-
trine of civil obedience, and made it an instrument of much political

* Bishop Vanghan, p. 28.

5S VATICANISKr. ^H

mischief. Passive obedienoe, non-resistance, and divine right, wil^^|
of good or evil they involve, were spefeifically her ideas. In the S^|^
ogy now dominant in the Cburch of Eome— the theology which has so
long had its neat 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 Princes and Governments 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 supe-
rior 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 beea
well known at least for near five centuries, since the time of Gerson,
whose name for Vaticanism is Aduhlio. &ntiens autmi Aduhlio quan-
doque nimis se cognosd, stiidet quasi modiciore sci-mcme dejiressius uii, ut
a-edlhilior appareaV I must say that rf Vatican ists have on this occa'-
sion paraded the superior quality of the article they vend as loyalty,
they have also supplied us with the means of testing the assertion; be-
cause one and all of them assert the corrective power of the Pope over
Christian Sovereigns and Governments, I do not dispute that th«r
commodity is good, in this country, for every-day tear and wear. But
as to its ultimate groundwork and principle, on which in other places,
and other circumstances, it might fall back, of this I will now* cite a
description 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, Nicholas the Fii-st,

When that Pontiff was prosecuting with iron will the cause against
the divorce of Lothair from Tlieutherga, he was opposed by soRte
Bishops within the dominions of the Emperor. Advcntitius, Bishop
of Metz, pleaded the duty of obeying his sovereign. Nicholas in re-
ply described his view of that matter in a passage truly classical, which
I translate from the Latin, as it is given in Baronius:

'Yau allBge, that jon subject yanraelf lo Kinga nnd PrinceE, bccmite liio Apoatlo saja,
" Wheiher lo the king, oa in nuihorit}'," Weil and good. Examine, lioivevor, luhellier tha
Kings nnd Princes, lo whom ^ou taj thnt yaa Bulimit, are truly Kings nnd PrinceB.

' Dt Potest. Eccl., Considenilio XII. ; Worhi, vol, ii, p. 240. EJ. Ilngue, 1T28.

F

WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 59

amine whether thej govem well, first themsel?es, then tlie people under them. For if one be
eril 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. Other-
wise, if we submit to such, and do not put ourselves over them, we must of necessity encour-
age 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 Grod, not against God." ' '

X cite the passage, not to pass a censure in the case, but for its
Btraightforward exposition of the doctrine, now openly and widely pre-
ferred, thougl} not so lucidly expounded, by the teaching body of the
Bomish 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,' j
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.^

"We are told, indeed, that it is not now the custom for the Pope to
depose princes: not even Victor Emmanuel.^ True: he does no more
than exhort the crowds who wait upon him in the Vatican to seek for
the restoration of those Italian sovereigns 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 Vaticanism 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 his own clemency in not put-
ting the head of Eobespierre under the guillotine.

But there are other kinds of interference and aggression, just as in-
tolerable in principle as the exercise, or pretended exercise, of the de-
posing power. Have they been given up? We shall presently see.*

•
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 contro-
versialist occasionally shows his contempt for the intelligence of his
readers by the quality of the arguments or statements which he pre-
sents for their acceptance. But this, if it is to be done with safety,
' ■ I ■ ■ — — —

* Baronius, A.D. 863, c. Ixx. * Bishop Vaughan, Pastdraly p. 84.

* Archbishop Manning, p. 46. *' Infm.

60 VATICANISM.

should be (lone 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 those which are
made by the Christian communions generally of modern times. 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 re-
fused; and as tlie Pope is much wiser than the individual, the differ-
ence in the Roman view is all in favo» of the order of civil society.

The reader will, I hope, pay close attention to this, portion of the
subject. The whole aTgument greatly depends upon it. Before repeal-
ing the penal laws, before granting political equality, the statesmen of
England certainly took a very different view. They thought the
Roman Catholic, as an individual citizen, was trustworthy. They were
not afraid o? 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 Koman Catholic citizen, and whether the local Cburcb,
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 in the Middle Ages ; which our Princes
and Parliaments long before the reign of Henry VlII, and the birth of
Anne Boleyn had wrought hard to control, and which the Bishops of
the sixteenth century, including Tuustal and Stokealey, Gardiner and
Bonner, used their best learning to exclude. Those who in 1S75 pro-
pound the doctrine, which no single century of the Middle Ages would
have admitted, must indeed have a mean opinion of any intellects ftbioh
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. Wher-
ever 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 coneema, 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 equilibrimn.
In the normal posture of things, the State ought to control, and can con-
trol, its subjects sufficiently for civil order and peace; and the normal is
also the ordinary case, in this respect, through the various countries of

r

WABBANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 61

the civilized world. But the essential condition of this ability, on which
all depends, is that the forces 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.

Bat the Triregno of the Popie, figured by the Tiara, touches heaven,
eartli, and the place of the departed. We now deal only With the earth-
ly 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" forca The very first condition of State rule is thus vitally com-
promised.

The power with which the State has thus to deal is^ one dwelling
beyond its limits, and yet beypnd the reach of its arm. AH the sub-
jects of the State are responsible to the State : they must obey, or they
must take the consequences. But for the Pope there are no conse-
quences : he is not responsible.

But it may be said, and it is true, that the State will not be much the
better for the power it possesses of sending all its subjects to prison for
disobedience. And here we come upon the next disagreeable distinction
in the case of the Eoman 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 by 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, withta higher sanction, the title to
similar coercive means of enforcement •

No doubt, mere submission to consequences is, for the State, an in-
adequate c&mpensation for the mischief oT disobedience. The State
has duties which are essential to its existence, and which require active
instruments. Passive resistance, widely enough extended, would be-
come 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 authority to order the mill-
ions; 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
responsible to the law ; the second, that the larger part of his power is

69

VATICANISM.

derived from foreign sources ; the third, that he claims to act, and acts,'
not bj individuals, 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
TTith the laws of their country.

Even all this might bo borne, and might be comparatively harmless
but for that at ivhich I have already glanced, lie alone of all ecclesi-
astical powers presumes not only to limit the domain of the State, but
to meet the State in its own domain. The Presbyterian Church of Scot-
land 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 command the private conscience. Its modest language
would be far from filling the os rotundum of a Roman Pontiff Nay,
the words of the Apostle do not sufBce for him. St. Peter himself was
not nearly so great as his Successor, lie 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 pro-
scribe and condemn, and declare them to be absolutely, both hereafter
and fi-om the first, null, void, and of no effect.' That is to say, the Pope
tabes 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, 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 mon-
strous claims and the modest*hough in their proper place invincible
exigencies of the private conscience. But one void still remains un-
filled; one plea not yet unmaske<I. Shall it be said, this is all true,
but it is all spiritual, and therefore harmless? An idle an'fewer 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 thai
idle, because totally untrue, inasmuch as we are now told in the plain-
est terms (negatively in the Syllabus, af&rmatively in Schrader's ap-
proved conversion of it),* that the Church is invested with a temporal
power direct and indirect, and has authority to employ external coer*

■ Schroder, ns nboie, p, Gi.

r

WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 63

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 6xact 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 as-
signable 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 y^ars. The centre
of the operation has lain in the Society of Jesuits ; I am loath to call
tiieni by the sacred name, which ought never to be placed in the pain-
ful a^ssociations of controversv. In 1870, the fullness of time was come.
The matter of the things to be believed and obeyed hud been sufficiently
developed. But inasmuch as great masses of the Ebman Catholic 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 ab-
stractions if possible into the order of still more mischievous realities.
■ The infallible, 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 Tioo 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
lost twenty.

1. In his Allocution of the 22d of January, 1855, Pfts 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 Eeligion, ihe Church,
and the Roman See, and particularly a law proposed for the suppres-
sion of the monastic orders as moral entities, that is to say as civil cor-
porations.

2. On the 26th of July in the same year, Pius IX. sent forth another

64 VATICfANISM.

Allocution, in which he recited various acts of the Government. of
Spain, including the establishment of toleration for non-Eomg,n wof' .^
ship, and the secularization of ecclesiastical property; and, by his ow^
Apostolical authority, he declared all the laws hereto relating to be abrcr "
gated, totally null, and of no eflfect.

3. On the 22d of June, 1862, in another Allocution, Pius IX. recit
the provisions of an Austrian law of the previous December, which es- ^
tablished freedom of opinion, of the press, of belief, of conscience, of sci- -
ence, of education, and of religious profession, and which regulated mat-
rimonial jurisdiction and other matters. The whole of these 'abomi-
nable' 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 alhnul-
ment of the laws upon this allegation. And Schrader, in his work on
the Syllabus, founds the 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 Aiticle of the Syllabus, respecting the
exclusive establishment of the Eoman religion.^

To provide, however, against all attempts to take refuge in this spe-
cialty, 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 suppres-
sion of monastic orders and appropriation of their properties had been
passed in the kingdom of Sardinia, on the simple ground of his Apos-
tolic authority, the Pope annuls this law, and all other laws injurious to
the Church, and excommunicates all who had a hand in them.

2. In an Allocution of December 15, 1856, the Pope recites the in-
terruption of negotiations for a Concordat with Mexico, and the various
acts of that Government against religion, such as the abolition of the ec-
clesiastical /jrtftTi, the secularization of Church property, and the civil
permission to members of monastic establishments to withdraw from
them. All of 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

^ Schrader, p. 80.

r

WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 65

Granada Among the^wrongs committed, we find the establishment of
fireedom of worship {cujusque catholici cuUHls libertas sancita). 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.^

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 Privilegium, vol. iii. p. 19, n.. Archbishop Man-
ning quotes the Bull In Ooend Domini as if it were still ip force. Bishop
Gli^ord, in his Pastoral Letter (p. 9), laid it down that though all hu-
man actions were moral actions, there were many of them which be-
longed to the temporal power, and with which the Pope could not in-
terfere. Among these he mentioned the assessment and payment of
taxes. But is it not the fact that this Bull excommunicates ^ all who
impose new taxes, not already provided for by law, without the Pope's
leave?' and all who impose, without the said leave, special and express,
any taxes, new or old, upon clergymen, churches, or monasteri&?2

I may be told that Archbishop Manning is not a safe authority in
.these matters, that the Bull In Ooend Domini was withdrawn after the
assembling of the Council, and the constitution ApostoUcce Sedis^ substi-
tuted 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 time proclaimed? Indeed
the new Constitution itself, dated October, 1869, the latest specimen of
leform and concession, without making any reservation whatever on
behalf of the laws of the several countries, excommunicates (among
others) —

' All these citations, down to 1865, will be found in Recueil des Allocutions Consistoriales,
etc (Paris, 1865, Adrien Leclerc et C^*) ; see also Europdische Geschichtskalender, 1868, p.
249 ; Von Schulte, Powers of the Roman Popes, vol. iv. p. 43 ; Schrader, as above. Heft ii.
p. 80 ; Vering, Katholisches Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1868), Band xx. pp. 170-1, N. F. ;
Band xir.

• 0*Keeffe, Ultramontanism, pp. 215, 219. The reference is to sections v., xviii.

• See Qnirinns, p. 105 ; and see Constit, ApostoUcce Sedis in Friedberg's Acta et Decreta
Came. Vat. p. 77 (Freiburg, 1871).

E

VATICANISM.

1. All wbo imprison or prosecute QiostiUkr ijisequenles) Archbishops
or Bishops.

2. All who directly or indirectly interfere with any ecclesiastical jii-
risdiction.

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 In-
quisition in the execution of their duties,

5. All who secularize or beconae owners of Church property with-
out the permission of the Pope.

VIII. On the Ihtrissic Nature and Conditions of the Papal
Infallibility decreed in the Vatican Coukcil,

I have now, I thint, dealt^ sufficiently, though at greater length than
I could have wished, with the two allegations, first, that the Decrees of
1870 made no difierencc in the liabilities of Homan Catholics with re-
gard to their civil allegiance ; secondly, that the rules of their Cburcli
allow them to pay an allegiance no more divided than that of other
citizen.^, and that the claims of Ultramoulanism, as against the Civil
Power, are the very same with those which are advanced by Christiati
communions and persons generally.

I had an unfeigned anxiety to avoid all discussion of the Decree of
Infallibility 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 tenirt which the Bishops of one half the
Christian world have now placed upon a level with the Apostles' Creed.

The name of Popery, which was formerly imposed ad mvidiam by
heated antagonists, and justly resented by Roman Catholics,' appears
now to be perhaps the only name which describes, at ouce with poinb
and with accuracy, the religion promulgated from the Vatican in 1870.
The change made was immense. Bishop Thirlwall, one of the ablest
Kiigllsh writers of our time, and one imbued almost beyond any other
with what the Germans eulogize as the historic mind, said in his Charge

NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 67

of 1872, that the promulgation of the new Dogmm, 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 witness-
ed daring the same interval.' ^ 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 suspend it on his will. This is a startling
statement; but as it invites, so will it 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 themselves respectively allow. Here the resemblance be-
gins and ends. The nation is ruled by a Legislature, of which by fer
the most powerful branch is freely chosen, from time to time, by the
conmiunity itself, by the greater part of the heads of families in the
country ; and all the proceedings of its Parliament 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 viljage, and almost in every household
of the land. They are governed by rules framed to secure both ample
time for consideration and the utmost freedom, or, it may be, even li-
cense of debate ; and all that is said and done is subjected to s^n imme-
diate, sharp, and incessant criticism; with the assurance on the part of
tte 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 contradictory : you will then have a perfect de-
scription of the present Government of the Roman Church. The an-
cient principles of popular election and control, 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
, Carialism, been in the main effaced, or, where not effaced, reduced to
I die list stage of practical inanition. We see before us the Pope, the
llUJIl^ll^ the priesthood, and the people. The priests are absolute over

' e Bishops over both ; the Pope over all. Each inferior

larye of ike Bishop of St, Davids, 1672, p. 2.

68 VATICAKISM. I

may appeal against hfe supenor; but.be appeals to a tribunal which is
secret, wliich ib irresponsible, wliich he has no share, direct or indirect,
in constituting, and no menna, however remote, of controUing; and
which, during all the long- centuries of its existence, but especially dui^
rng the latest of them, hag bad for its cardinal rule this — that all its
judgments should be given in the sense moat 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
centra! See are laws ; and they override at will all other laws ; and if
they concern faith or monils, or the discipline of the Church, they
-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, so no man has knowledge of, what
ia done or meditated. The prompters are unknown ; the consultees are
unknown ; the procedure is unknown. Not that there are not officers,
and rules; but the officers may at will be overridden or superseded,
and the rules at will, and without notice, altered pm re natd and an-
nulled. To secure rights has been^ and is, the aim of the Christian civ-
ilization ; to destroy them, and to establish the resistless, domineering
action of a purely central power, ia 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 aa 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 Cliurch have seen occa-
sion 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 enor-
mous mischiefs:

'Dl' og^niLU, che In Cbiesn di Itonm
Per conrondcrc in sa due i-eggimcnti
Cnde nel fango, e ae bruttii, c In aomii.''
'The Church d( Itomc,
MixJng two gDvcmmenls tlinl ill OMurl,

NATUBE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBIUTY. 60

Hath missed her footing, &llen into the niire,

And there herself, and burden, much defiled.' — Cory,

Without doubt there is an answer to all this. Publicity, responsibil-
ity, restraint, and all the forms of warranty and safeguard, are wanted
for a human institution, but are inapplicable to a * divine teacher,' to
an inspired Pontiff, to a ' living Christ/ The promises of God are
sure, and fail not His promise has been given, and Peter in his Suc-
cessor shall never fail; hevey go astray. He needs neither check nor
aid, as he will find them for himself. He is an exception to all the
rules which det^^ine human action ; and his action in this matter is
not really human, but divine. Having, then, the divine gift of iner-
rancy, why may he not be invested with the title, and assume the di-
vine attribute, of omnipotence ?

No one can deny that the answer is sufficient, if (faly it be true.
But the weight of such a superstructure requires a firm, broad, well-as-
certained foundation. 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 tte abandonment of reason is
credulity, and the habit of credulity is presumption.

Is there, then, such a foundation disclosed ta Us by Dr. Newman^
when he says * the long history of the contest for and against the
Pope's infallibility 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.^ Next, * Strengthen thy brethren ;'
which has no reference whatever to doctrine, but only, if its force
extend beyond the immiediate occasion, to government; and, finally,
*Thou art Peter, and on this rock 1 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 dis-
tinction of ex cathedrd and not ex cathedrd, but the entire proceedings of
his ministry are included without distinction.

* Dr. Newman, p. 110.

* * Concio habendu at non habitUy* i. ii. ; Friedrich, Documenta ad illustrandum^ Cone. Vat,
Abth, vol. i. pp. 191, 199. I leave it to those better entitled and better qualified to criticise
the pnrely arbitrary construction attached to the \yords.

VATICANISM.

Into three texts, then, it seems the Church of ^Rome has at length, in
iLe course of centuries, acquired this deep insight. In the study of
ihfse three fragments, how much eJse has she forgotten ; the total igno-
rance of St. Peter himself respecting his ' monarchy ;' the exercise of
the defining ofBce not by him but by St. James in the Council of Jera-
;Balem; the world-wide commission specially nnd 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 tbeni the names of the twelve Apostles of the
Lamb' (Rev, xxi, 14). But let us tike a wider grouti^. Is it not the
function of the Church to study '.hf Divine Word aa a whole, and to
gather into the foci of her teaching the rays that proceed from all its
parts? Is not this narrow, sterile, willful textualism the favorite resort
of sectaries, th» general charter of all license and self-will that lays
waste the garden of the Lord? Is it not this that destroys the large-
ness and fair proportions of the Truth, squeezing here and stretching
there, substituting for the reverent jealousy nf 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, wc 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 perfectly and absolutely helpless,
i'or if they allege alteration and innovation, the very same language
will be available against them which has been used againsl^lhe 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 be-
lieves implicitly hereafter. Do not appeal to raason; that is rational-
ism. Do not appeal to Scripture; that is heresy. Do not appeal to
history ; that is private judgment. Over all these things I am judge,
not you. If you tell me that I require you to affirm to-day, under aa-

r

NATURE AND CONDmONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 71

athema, 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 Vaticanism, and which
has been ejQfectual to intimidate the feeble-minded and faint-hearted, who
seemed to have formed, at the Council of the Vatican, so large a propor-
lion of its opponents; nay, which has convinced them, or has performed
in them the inscrutable process, be it what it may, which is the Roman
substitute for conviction, that what in the Council itself they denounced
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 Infalli-
bility of 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
rales of the Gospel, and by every definition in faith and morals that the Church has ever
made. No man is more bound by law than the Pope ; a fact plainly known to himself, and
to every bishop and priest in Christendom.* '

Eirery 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 gift of a stone.

Bishop Vaughan does not venture to assert that the Pope is bound
by the canon law, the written law of the Church of Eome. The aboli-
tion of the French Sees under the Concordat with Napoleon, and the
depositipn 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 prac-
tical purpose, the assertion that law no longer exists in that Church ; in
the same very real sense as 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 annul-
ling or a power of dispensing with the law. If Bishop Vaughan does

»-

* Bishop Vaughan, Pastoral Letter, p. 30.

72

VATICAHISM.

not know this, I am sorry to say be does not know the first lesson that
every English citizen should learn ; be has yet to pass through the lisp-
ings 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 England
we term ahsolutisni. By absolutism we mean the superiority of a per-
■ sonal 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 infallible in faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedrd, and he
himself is the final jmlge which of his utterances shall be utterances ex
cathedrd. He has only to use the words, 'I, ex cathedrd, 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 morals, to be held by the Universal Church, '
and 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 teacher, 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 ad-
visers near him, whom he will always consult I am bound to add that
I am skeptical as to the excellence of these ^dvisers. These are the
men who cherish, methodize, transmit, and exaggerate all the danger-
ous 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 sup-
ply that Eoman malaria which Dr. Newman' 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
so well-advised that it is perfectly safe to leave him i^ot bound by law.
On this latter question there may be a great conflict of opinions; bat it
is not the question before us.

It can not be pleaded against him, were it ever so clear, that his
deelaration-is contrary to the declaration of some other Popes. Por
here, as in the case of the Christian Creed, he may tell you — always

' Ffltican Decntt, chap. !i).

' Dr. Newman, p. 94.

r

NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. %2

speaking in the manner supposed — that that other Pope was ftot speak-
ing ejc caihedrd. Or he may tell you that there is no contrariety. If
you have read, if you have studied, if you have seen, if you have hum-
bly used everynneans 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
Borne, is in the breast of one man. The will and arbitrament of one
man will foi* the future decide, through half the Christian world, what;
religion is to be. It is unnecessary to remind me that this power is
limited to faith and morals. We know it is; it does not extend to
geometry, or to numbera Equally is it beside the point to observe that
the infallibility alleged has not received a new definition : I have no-
where 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 dif-
fused, the final sense of the great Christian, community, aided by
authority, tested by discussion, 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, to the whole
redeemed family, the baptized 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 pov-
erty 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 with-
out appeal. If he consults, it is by his will; if he does not consult, no
man can call him to account No man, or assemblage of men, is one
whit the less bound to hear and to obey. Ha is the judge of the moral
and divine law, of the Gospel, and of the commandments ; the supreme

M

VATICANISM.

and only final judge; and be is tbe judge, witli no legislature to correct
his errors, with no autlioritative rules to guide his proceedings; with no
power oa earth to question the force, or intercept the effect, of his de-
ciaiona. •

It i^ indeed said by Dr. Newman, and by others, that this infallibility
is iiot inspiration. On such a statement I have two remarks to make.
First, ihat we have this assurance on the strength only of bis own
priwite judgment; secondly, that if bidden by the self-assertion of the
J\>pe, he will be required by his principles to retract it,' and to assert,
if occasion should arise, ibe contrary ; thirdly, that lie lives under a sys-
tem of development, through which somebody's private opinion of to-
tjay way become matter of faith for all tbe to-morrows of the future;

Wh«t kind and class of private opinions are they that are most like-
ly to find favor with the Vatican? Ilistory, the history of well-nigh
cighieen centuries, supplies the answer, and supplies it with almost the
rigor of a mathematical formula. On every contested question, that
opinion finds ultimate assent at Eome which more exalts the power
Rome. Have no Popes claimed this inspiration, which Dr. Newman bo
reasonably denies? "Was it claimed by Clement XL for the Bull Unt-
ffaiittisf Was it claimed by Gregory the Second in a judgment in
which he authorized a 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
saya he has a higher title to admonish the governments of Europe than
tbe Prophet Nathan had to admonish David?' Shall we be told that
these are his utterances only as a private doctor? But we also learn
fmm 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, German, Italian, French, have ascribed inspiration to the Pope?
Opinions dispersed here and there were, in the cases of the Immacnlnlti
Conception, and of the Absolute Supremacy and the Infallibility ex ca-
Chedrd, gathered up, declared to constitute a consensus of the Church,
and made the groundwork of new Articles of Faith. Why sboutd not
tbis be done hereafter in the Case of Papal inspiration? It is but a
mild onward step, in comparison with the strides already made. Thoso

' Ur. Nawmap, pp.

> Uucorn di Ph JX, vol. i. p. B66, on March S, 1673.

r

NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 75

who cried * magiiific5ent ' on the last occasion will cry it again on the
next . Dr. Newman and the mininfizing 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 1810, and which the Council of the*
Vatican has authoritatively falsified.

Now, let*us look a, little more closely at this astonishing gift of In-
fallibility, and its almost equally astonishing, because arbitrary, limita-
tions. The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedrd. The
gift, we are told, has subsisted for 1800 years. When was the discrim-
inating phrase invented? Was it after Christendom had done without
it for one. thousand six hundred years that this limiting formula of
such vitar moment was discovered?" Do we owe its currency and prom-
inence — with so much else 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 Jfewish doctors taught ex cathedrd, and our Saviour enjoined that
they should be obeyed. Surely there could not be ^ more calamitous
illustration. Observe the terras 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.'* The Pope sits
in the cathedra of Peter: not all therefore, but only a very limited part
of what he enjoins, you are to accept and follow. Only what he says
under four* well-defined conditions." Only, writes Dr. Newman, when
he speaks 4n matters speculative,*' and * bears upon the domain of
thought, not directly of action.'* Let us look again to our four condi-
tions: 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 al-
waiys been unquestioned Scripture, does not address the entire Church ;
but in his second, which was for a time much questioned, he does. It
is much more singular that the early ages are believed to afford no ex-
ample whatever of a Papal judgment addressed to the entire Church.
So that it is easy to say that Honorius did not speak ex cai/iedrd: for
no Pope spoke ex cathedrd. It is even held by some that there was no
Bull or other declaration of a Pope corresponding with this condition

' St. Matt. xxui. 2. » Newman, p. 1X5. * Ibid., p. 127. * Ibid., p. 127.

I

I

70 VATICANISM. ^M

for ono thousand three hundred years ; and that the unhappy series be^
gan with Lfnam Sanctam of BonifucS Till. Bat how is it beyond all
expression strange that for one thousand three' hundred years, or were
it but for balf ono thousand three hundred years, the Church performed
Tier high office, and spread over the nations, without any infallible teach-
ing whatever from the Pope, and then that it should have been reserved
for these lat^r ages first to bring into exercise a^gift so entirely new,
without example in lis character, and on the presence or absence of
which (Ic'iiends a vital difference in the conditions of Church life?

The 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 set-
tled those tremendous controversies relating to the Godhead, the decis-
ion of which was the most arduous w.ork the Church has ever been
vallcil to perfprm in the sphere of thought. This vast work she went
through without the infallible utterances of the Pope, nay at threcscv-
eral times in oppceition to Papal judgments, now determined to h.ive
been heretical. Are more utterances now begun in order to sustaio the
miserable argument for forcing bis Temporal Sovereignty on a people
whom nothing but the violence of foreign ifrms will bring or keep be-
neath it?

Yet one more point of euggcstion. There are those who think that
the craving after an infallibility which is to speak from haman lips, in
chupter anl verse, upon each question as it aiises, is not a sign of the
strength and healthiness of faith, but of the diseased avidity of its we»k-
ncss. Let it, however, be granted, for the sake of argument, that it is
a comfort to the itiGrniity of human nature thus to attain promptly to
clear and intelligible solutions of its doubts, instead of waiting oo the
divine pleasure, as tlKi?e who watch for the morning, to ieceiv« itie
supplies required by its intellectual and its moral trials. A reecmUDeo*
dation of this kind, howevvf little it may endure the scmttny- of jilulo-
Gophic reScetion, mar probably h*n a gnat pover over ibe tta^Ba-
tion and the aRections (tifittut) of mankiod. For this; bovemr, it is
sarriy R<)aired that by the onlinaty &ealtie> of miiHml laiiiMrilj
and honeEily used, these inE&llibb dectaoos sfaooU be duoenuU^ wmA
tiiat they sboald st&nd severed frora tb» ^Mnd nasE «<t

r

NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 77

and ambiguous teachiiig. 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 hav-
ing to resort to the* aid of the * scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, and
subtlety of the Schola Theohgorum,^^ But 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 of 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 to refresh. * He shall feed me in a green pasture ;
and lead me forth beside the waters of comfort'* And, by the blessing
and mercy of God, straight and open is the access to them. In no part
of the Church of Christ, except.the Eoman, is it jealously obstructed by
ecclesiastical 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
transcendent prerogative of certain and unchanging truth ; but what are
the chapters of that code nobody knows except the Schola Theohgorum.
Is, for example, the private Christian less humbly desirous to know
whether he is or is not to rely absolutely on the declarations of the Syl-
labus as to the many and great matters which it touches ? No one can
tell him. Bishop Fessler (approved by the Pope) says so. He admits
thai he for one does not know. It seems doubtful whether he thought
that the Pope himself knew. For instead of asking the Pope, he prom-
ises that it shall be made the subject of long inquiry by the Schola Theo-
logorura. Ce sera tout cCabord a la science ikiohgique que sHmpqsera le de-
voir de rechercher les diverses raisons quimilitent enfaveur des diverses opin-
ions sur ceite question.^ But when the inquiry has ended, and the result
has been declared, is he much better off? I doubt it. For the decla-
ration need not then be a final one. 'Instances,' says Dr. Newman, * fre-
quently occur when it is successfully maintained by some new writer

' Dr. Newman, p. 121. ' Psalm xxiii. 2.

' ^Vraie etfausse In/aillibiliti des Papes,* p. 8. Angl. : *It will at once become the duty
of theological science to examine into the yaiious reasons which go to support each of the va-
rious opinions on that question.'

78 VATICANISM.

that tbe Pope's act doea not imply what it has seemed to imply; and
questions whicli seemed to be closed are after a course of years re-open-
ed.' ' It does not appear whether there is any limit to this ' course q£
years.' But whether there is or is not, one thing is clear: Between
the solid ground, the tifrrajirma of Infallibility, and the qualcing, fluota-
ating mind of the individual, which seeks to find' repose upon it, there
is an interval over which he can not cross. Decrees ex calhedrd are
infallible ; but determinations what decrees are ex caUiedrd are fallible ;
so that the private person, after he has with all docility handed over bis
mind and its freedom to the &hola Theohgorum, can never certainly
know, never know with ' divine faith,' when he is on the rock of infalli-
bility, when on the shifting quicksands of a merely human perBunsioii,

Dr. Newman' will perhaps now be able to judge the reason which lecl
me to say, ' There is no established or accepted definition of the phrase
ex cathedrd,^ By a definition I understand something calculated to bring
tlje true nature of the thing defined nearer to the rational apprehension
of those who seek to understand it; not a volume of words in them-
selves obscure, only pliable to the professional interest of Cnrialism, aud
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 avtkuJus slantis aui caden-
tis ccdesia.

Conclusion.
I have now, at greater lengtli 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 De-
crees of the Vatican on Papal Infallibility, and 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 are such as to pl.ice civil al-
legiance at his mercy.

CONCLUSION.

, That the State and people of the United Kingdom had a right t|
r on the aasurancea they had received that Pupal Infallibility ^
i, and could ncrt become, an article of faith in the Roman Church, and
t ihe obedience due to the Pope was limited by ]aw3 independent of

[ need not any more refer to others of my assertions, more general, a
^ essential to the main argument.
i?he appeal of the Dublin Review' for union on the basis of common'
lief in resisting unbelief, which ougbt to be strong, is unhappily very
mk. ' Defend,' says the Reviewer, ' the arlc of salvation precious to
■fcotb, tbougli. you have an interest (so to speak) in only a part of tb^
But aa the Reviewer himself is deck-loading the vessel in aud^
manner as to threaten her foundering, to atop his very active proceeS
s not opposed to, nay, is part of, the duty of caring for the safeH
Bthe vessel. But weaker still, if possible, is the appeal which ArcH
jhop Manning has made against my publication, as one which endeav-
Ito create religious divisions among his flock, and instigate them to
b against the authority of the Church. For if the Church of England,
Ewbich I am a member, is, as she has never ceased to teach, the an-
lut, lawful, Catholic Cburch of this country, it is rather Archbishop
bnning than I that may be charged with creating, for the last twenty

1 and more, religious divisions among our countrymen, and inst

jting them to rise against that ancient, lawful, and mild authority.

LTbere may be, and probably arc, great faults in my manner of con-'

■cting this argument But the claim of Ultramontanism among us

^rna to amount to this: that there shall he no free, and therefore no

atual, examination of the Vtitican Decrees, because they are the

■ords of a Father, and sacred therefore in the eyes of bis affectionate

pildren.' It is deliberately held, by grave and serious men, that my

pstruing the Decrees of the Vatican, not arbitrarily, but with argu-

ient and proof, in a manner which malcps them adverse to civil duty,

'insult' and an outrage to the Roman Catholic body, which I

B nowhere charged with accepting them in that sense. Yet a far

ter license has been assumed by Archbishop Manning, who, with-

( any attempt at proof at all, suggests,^ if he does not .assert, th*

W Jan., 1S75. - Dublin Rei-itu; Jan., IS'u, p. 179. * Arclibi^hoi) Manninj^ p. ft

so VATtCASJSaL

tho allegiance of the mases oC th« English people is an inert oonfonn-
it<r &ad a passive cotnpiiance. given r«Llly for wrath and not for con-
science' sak& This opinion is, in taj judgment, most untrue, most
ui\}u:$t; but to call e^eii this au iosult would be aa act of foltj, be-
tokening, as I think, an unsound and unmanly habit of mind. Again,
to call the unseen councilors of the Pope myrmidons, to speak of
' aidois and abettors of the Papal chair,' to call Borne, ' head-quarters,'
these and like phrases amount, according to Archbishop Manning,"
to 'an indulgence of unehastened language rarely to be equaled.' I
frankly own that this is in my e^'es irrational. Kot that it is agreeable'
to me to employ even this fiir from immoderate liberty of controversial
laiiguaga I would rather pay an unbroken reverence to all ministers
of I'eligion, and especially to one who fills the greatest See of Christen-
dom. But I 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
vety constitution of our nature, and the high designs of Providence for
trying and training it I can not under the restraints of courtly phrase
gonvev any adequate idea of such tremendous mischiefe ; for in propor-
tiou as the power is venerable, the abuse of it is pernicious. I am driven
to the conclusion that tbia sensitiveness is at the best but morbid. The
cause of it may be, that for the last thirty years, in this country at least,
UUramontanism has been very busy in making controversial war upon
other people, with singularly little restraint of language; and has hud
for too little of the truth told to itself. Hence it has lost the habit, al-
most the idea, of equal laws in discussion. Of that system as a system,
especially after the further review ofit 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 profassors the credit of doing what they think
is for the glory of God, they exhibit in a notable degree the vast aelf-
dclading foreea which make sport of our common nature. The great
instrument to which they look for the promotion of Christianity seems
to bo aa unmeasured exaltation of the clerical class and of its power, as

' Artlibii^linp Manning, p, 177.

M

CONCLUSION.

tainst all thnt is secular and lay, an exaltation not less unhealthy for

ffit order Itself than for society at large. There are those who think,

t being mere worshipers of Luther, that he saved the Church of

me by alarming it, when its Popes, Cardinals, and Prelates were car-

j it 'down a steep place into the sea;' and it may be that those

^ even if too roughly, challenge the proceedings of the Vatican, are

r promoting its interesta than such as court its favors, and hang

K>n its lips.

I am concerned, however, to say that in the quick resentment whibll--
s been directed against clearness and strength of language, I seem to
rceive not simply a natural sensitiveness, but a great deal of contro-
rsial stratagem. The purpose of my pamphlet was to show that the
rectors of the Eoinan Church had in tlie Council of the Vatican com;
3 a gross offense against civil authority, and against civil freedoi
lim of most of those who have professionally replied to me seei
I have been at all hazards to establish it in the minds of their flocks,'
|at whatever is said against their high clerical superiors is said against
m, although they had nothing to do with the Decrees, or with the
loice or nppointment of the exalted persons who framed and passed
But this propositio]], if stated calmly as part of an argument,
111 not bear a moment's examiuation. Consequently, it has been bold-
i that this drawing of distinctions between pastors and the flock,
le the one made the Decrees and the other did not, is an insult
i an outrage to all alilce;' and by this appeal passion is stirred up

1 counsel and obscure the case,
[ am aware that this is no slight matter, and I have acted under

e of no trivial responsibility. Earely in the complicated combinn-

ms of politics, when holding a high place in the councils of my Sov-

I, and when error wns commonly visited by some form of sharp

fad sfieedy retribution, have I felt that scene as keenly. At any rate,

lay and must say that all the words of these Tracts were written as

one who knows that he must answer for them to a, Power

1 that of public opiiiion.

I If any motive connected with religion helped to sway me, it v

m

in- . I

' I withhold the referencBs— they are numerous, alihough bj no means nniversal; nnd luq
g; »ud ao much of the exireme Jocii-inea of Arclibisljop Manning, I liare pleasure in
B lliut be does not ndopl this laugunge.

p

VATICANISM.

one of hosiility, bat the reverse. My hostility, at least, was the sen-
tiioeot which we feel toward faults which mar the excellences, which
eveu destroy the hope acid the promise of those we are fain to leva
Attached to roy owu religious communion, the Church of my birth and
luy country, I have uever 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 my lot had been caat — not by, but
for me. In every other portion of that family, whatever its name,
whatever its extent, whatever its perfections, or whatever its imperfec-
tions,! have sought to feel a kindly interest, varying in its degree ac-
cording to the likeness it seemed to beat to the heavenly pattern, and.
ttecording to the capacity it seemed to possess to minister to the health
and welfare of the whole,

I

'LefroDdi, onde s'impaniln tutM I'oito

Del Orlokuo EtciTio, am'io colanio

QunniD dn Lui in lot ili bene h porto.''

'The leaveB, whereiviili embowered is all tlio garden

Of the Eternal Gaideiier, do I Idtb

As muL'b as lie iias grniued ihem of good.'-— Xon^/V/Zoic.

Wliether they be Tyrian or Trojan," Eastern or "Western, Reformed o»
Unreformed, I desire to renounce and repudiate all which needlessly-
woiinds them, which does them less than justice, which overlooks their
phice 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 Christi-
aoily. Therefore I will say, and I trust to the spirit of Charity to in-
terpret me, I have always entertained a warm desire that the better el-
ements might prevail over the worse in that great Latin communion
which we call the Church of Rome, and which comprises one hal^ or
near one half, of Christendom: for the Church which gave us Thomas
t\ Kempis, and which produced the scholar-like and states man -like mind
of Erasmus, the varied and attractive excellences of Colet, and of More;
for the Chnrcli of Pascal and Amauld, of Nicole and Qucsnel : for the
Church of some now living among us, of whom none would deny that
ihey are as humble, as tender, aa self- renouncing, and as self-al
11 word, as Evangelical as the most ' Evangelical ' of Protestants by pos-
iiibility can be.

upartial student of history can, I think, fail to regard with much
and some sympathy the body of British Christiana 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 appreciate 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 na-
tional hierarchy, and the noble establishments of the national religion \__
it was severely smitten by the penal laws, and its reasonable aspiratiod
for the measures that would have secured relief were mercilessly thwaif
ed and stifled by those Popes whom they loved too well. Amid ttW
these cruel difficulties, it retained within itself these high characteristics :
it was moderate; it was brave; it was devout; it was learned ; it was
loyal.

In discussing, however sharply, the Vatican Decrees, I have endea'*
i^red to keep faith ; and I think that honor as well as prudence requireq
me, 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 Eoman Catholic religion, such as it stood before 1870 in it^
general theory, and such as it actually lived and breathed in EnglalU
during my own early days, half a century ago.
r It was to those members of such a body, who still cherish its
lotions in consistency as well as in good faith, that I could alone, ■
/ hope of profit, address my appeal. Who are they now ? and haj
y? Has what was most noble in them gone- the way of all fled
rgether with those clergy of 1826 in England and Ireland, who, as I
Rewman tells us, had been educated in Galliean opinions?
^More than thirty years ago, I expressed to a near friend, slight^
ir than myself, and in all gifts standing high even among tal
; of his day, the deep alarm I had conceived at the probablP
hiaequences of those secessions of educated, able, devout, and in some
i most eminent men to the Church of Home, which had then
;un in series, and which continued for about ten years. I had then
apprehension, which after-experience has confirmed in my mind,
iome it may appear a pjiradox, that nothing woul

84 VATICANISM.

SO powerfully upon the England of the nineteenth century as a crowd
of these secessions — especially if from Oxford — in stimulating, strength-
ening, and extending the negative or destructive spirit in religion. 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 coald not fail to have in softening the spirit and modifying
the general attitude of the Church of Eome itself. The secessions con-
tinued, 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 everywhere to the progress and
to the. highest exaggerations 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-Eoman 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
moderation, or upon learning, or upon loyalty, or upon the general
peace. •

I have above hazarded an opinion that in this country it may cause
inconvenience ; 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 necessary. 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 founda-
tions of civil order, and which any one of us may at any time encount-
er 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 ex-
crescences, 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

• ' Dr. Capel, p. 48; ArcMbishop Manning, p. 127.

lot speak of the kind of peace wliich the Goman Propaganda bns fur
%e last thirty years been carrying through the private homes of En-
land. But I look out into the world ; and I find that now, and in
t part since the Vatican IJecrees, the Cliurcli of Home, through the
Jourt of Rome and its Head, the Pope, is in direct feud with Portu-
ju, with Spain, with Germany, with Switzerland, with Austria, with
tosain, with Brazil, and with most of South America; in short, with
i f&T larger part of Christendom. The particulars may be found in,
lay, they almost fill, the Speeches, Letters, Allocutions, of the Pope
limself. So notorious are the facts that, according to ArchbisLop Man-
ling, they are due to a conspiracy of the Governments. Ho might as
easonably sny they were due to llie Council of the Amphictyoiis. On
ine point I must strongly insist. In my Expostulation, I laid stress
Upon the charge of an intention, on the part of Vaticanism, to pro-
mote the restoration of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, on the
first favorable opportunity, by foreign arms, and without reference to
[the wishes of those who were once his peopla From Archbishop
Manning downward, not so much as one of those who have answered
! from the standing-ground of Vaticanism has disavowed this proj-
|eot; many of them have openly professed that they adopt it, and glo-
irjr in it Thus my main practical accusation is admitted; and the
imaiii motive which prompted me is justified. 1 am afraid that the cry
ifor peace in the quarters from which it comes has been the complaint
pf the foeman scaling the walls against the sentry who gives the alarm.
fyhat alarm every man is entitled to give, when the very subject th.at
freoipitatea the discussion is the performance of duties toward the
Crown and State, to which we ore all bound in common, and in which
fhe common interest is so close that their non-performauce by any one
s an injury to all the rest.

It may be true that in human things there are great restraining and
(qualizing powers, which work unseen. It may be true that the men
pf good systems are worse than their principles, and the men of bad sys-
tems better than their principles, but, speaking of systems, and not of
men, I am convinced that the time has come when religion itself re-
ciuires a vigorous protest against this kind of religionism.

I am not one of those who find or imagine a hopeless hostility be-
tween authority and reason ; or who undervalue the vital moment of

^Q VATICANISIM. ^^^^^H

Christianity to mankind. I believe tliat religion to be tbe dctermia-
iug condition of our well or ill being, and its Cburcli to bave been and
to be, in its several orgaDisms, by far tlie greatest institution tbat the
world Liia ever seen. The poles on wliieh the dispensation rests are
truth and freedom. Between this there is a holy, a divine union; and
he that impairs or impugns either ia alike the enemy of both. To
tear or to beguile away from man the attribute of inward liberty, ia
not only idle, I would almost say it is impious. When the Christian
scheme first went forth, with all iia authority, to regenerate the world?
it did not discourage, but invited, the free action of the human reason
and the individual conscience, while it supplied these agents from with-
in with the rules and motives of a humble, which was also a noble, self-
restraint. The propagation of the Gospel was committed to an organ-
ized society; but in the constitution of that society, as we learn alike
from Scripture and from history, 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 domina-
tion, the rigid conservatism of the Eastern Church presents us, even
down to the present day, with an authentic and living record. But
the Churches subject to the Pope, clerical power, and every doctrine
and usage favorable to clerical power, have been developed, and devel-
oped, and developed, while all that nurtured freedom, and all that guar-
anteed it, have been harassed and denounced, cabined and confined,
attenuated and starved, with fits and starts of intermitted success and
failure, bat with a progress on the whole as decisively onward toward
its aim as that which some enthusiasts think they see in the natur-il
movement of humanity at large. At last came the crowning stroke
of 1870: the legal e.xtinction of Rigiit, and the enthronement of .Will
in its place, throughout the churches of one half of Christendom,
While freedom and its guarantees are thus attacked on one side, n
multitude of busy but undisciplined and incoherent assailants, on tlie
other, are making war, some upon Revelation, some upon dogma, some
upon Theism itself. Far be it from me to question the integrity 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 de-
fended by a policy which declines to acknowledge the high place as-

CONCLUSION. 87

signed to Liberty in the counsels of Providence, and which, upon the
pretext of the abuse that like every other good she suflfers, expels her
froin its system. Among the many noble thoughts of Homer, there is
not one more noble or more penetrating than his judgment upon slav-
ery. * On the day,' he says, * that makes a bondman of the free,*

* Wide-seeing Zeus takes half the man away."

He thus judges, not because the slavery of his time was cruel, for evi-
dently it was n9t, 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.

APPENDIX A (p. 5).

■ The following are tho principal Replies fmm antagonists wliieh I havd
seen, I have read tho wliole of ihern with cave; and I have not know-
ingly omitted in this Rejoinder any thing materia! to the main argu-
nients that they contain. I place thoni as nearly as I can in ehrouolog
ical order :

1. Si^pl!/ to Mr. Gktdstone. By a Monk of St. AngustineV, Ramsgat

Nov. 15, 1874. London.

2. Eeposhdation in extremis. By Lord Robert MoDtagii. London, 18'

3. The D6llingei-it6S, Mr. Gladstone, and the Apostates from the Mtttli

By Bishop UUathorne. Nov. 1 7, 1874. London,

4. The Abominatioti of Desolation. By Kev. J. Coleridge, S.J. Now

23, 1874. London,
fi'. Very Rev. Canon Oakeley, Letters of. Nov. 16 and 27, 1874.

the Times.

0. Catholic. Allegiance. By Bishop Clifford. Clifton, Nov. 25, 1874.
, Pastoral Lett&'a. By Bishop Vaughnn. Dec. 3, 1874. London.

eamo, with Appendices, Jan. 1875.
L Review of Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation, in The Month for Dec. 137i

and Jan. IB7S. By Rev. T. B. Parkinson, S.J.
L Mstemal Aspects of the Gladstone Controversy. In Z'Ae Month i

Jan. 1875.
}. An UUramontane's Reply to Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation.

don, 1874.
I. Letter to J. D. Hutchinson, Esq. By Mr. J. Stone Smith. Nov. 24

1874. In the Salifux Courier of Dec. 5, 1874.
I. Zetter to the Might Son. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. By a Scottiali C

■ lio Layman. London, 1874.
L Reply to the Right Son. W. E. Gladstone's Political J

By Monsignor Capel. London, 1874.
. A Vindictitioti nftlie Pope and the Catholic Religion. By Mulhailefl

Mariim,LL.B. Kilkenny, 1874.

itedftl

APPENDICES.

15. Gatholidty, Liberty, Allegiance, a JHsquisiHon on Mr. Gladstone's Ex-

poatulation. By Rev. Johu Curry', Jan. 1, 1875. London, Diibliii,
Bradford.

16. Mr. Gladstone's Mtpostiilation Unraveled. By Bisliop Ullatborne.

London, 1875.

17. Sal 2'entativo Antieattalico in Inghilterra, eVOpuscolo del On"" Si'i/.

Gladstone. Di Monsignor Fianoesco Nardi, Roma, 1875.

18. A Letter to his Grace the Duke of I^orfolk, on occasion of Mr. Glad-

stone's recent Expostulation. By John Henry Newman, D.D., of
the Oratory. London, 1875.

1 9. The Vatican Decrees in their beariny on Civil Allegiance. By Henry

Edward, Avi\hbishop of WestminBler.. Loudon, 1875.

20. The Dublin Semew, Art. VU. London.Jan. 1875.

21. lyie Union Reaiew, Art. I. By Mr. A. P. de Lisle. London, Feb.

1875.

I need not here refer particulaiOy to the eignificant letters of favorable
i-eaponse which have proceeded from within the Roman Catholic com-
munion, or from those who have been driven out of it bj' the Vatican
Decrees.

APPENDIX B (p. 8).

'I lament not only to read the name, but to trace the arguments of Dr.
Von DOUinger in the pamphlet before me.'— Archbishop Manning, Letter
to the 'IVjneSj'Nov. 7, 1874, — '■Vatican Decrees,* p. 4.

Justice to Dr. Von Dollingec reqiiirea me to state that he bad no con-
cei-n, direct or indirect, in the production or the publication of the tract,
and that he was, until it had gone to press, ignorant of its existence.
Ilad he been a party to it, it could not have failed to be far more worthy
of the attention it received.

Bishop Ullatborne goes further, and saj-s of Dr. Von D511iugei' that ' lie
never was a theologian,' — Letter, p. 10.

Then they have made strange mistakes in Germany.

Werner, a writer who I belie^'e is tnistworthy, in his Gescfiichte der
Katfwliaehen Theologie, 1888, is led by bis aubject to survey the actual
staff and condition of the Roman Church. He says, p. 470: 'Almost for
an entire generation. Dr. J. Von DOllingev has been held the most kamed
theologimi of Catholic G^many; and he indisputably counts among the
greatest intellectual lights that the Catholic Church of the present age
has to show.'

APFRKDICES.

1 cito a Blill liigher authority in Cavdiiial Schwai-zenbei^, Ai'otil)ishop
fPmgue. Ou May25,1868,lie addresaeil a letter to Cardinal Antoiiflli,
:i which he pointed out that the theologianB, who had boon smiiinoned
1 1 om Germany to tho Council, were all of the same theological school, and
tiiat for the treatment of dogmatio mailers it was most imporlant that
roiiie moi-e profound students, of more rich and iniiversal learning, as w
:is Bound in faith, should be called, lie goes on to suggest the names o
Ilefele, Kuhn, and (with a hitjh eulogy) Von DOlIinger.

The strangest of all ia yet behind. Cardinal Antonelli, in his reply
dated July 15, receives with some favor the suggestion of Cardinal
Schwarzenberg, and saya that one of the three theologians named would
certainly have been invited to the Council, had not the Pope been informed
iliat if invited he wo nld decline to come. That one wasDr.VonDollinger.

I cite the original documents, which will be found in Friedrich's Doau-^
:ii£n(a ad Ulmtrandum Concilium Yatiaanum, pp. 277-80,

APPENDIX C (p. 20).

As T hflTfl cited Schrader elsewhere, I cite him hei-e also; simply be-
cause he translates (into German) upon a different construction of the
Seventy-lbii'd Article of the Syllabus from that which I bad adopted, and
makes a disjunctive proposition out of two statements which appear to bo
iu effect identical. lu Euglish, his conversion of the article runs as fol-

■ 'Among Christians no true matrimony can be constituted by vii-tne of
^(ivil contract ; and it is true that either the marriage contract between

M'istians is a Sacrament, or that tlie contract is null when the Sacrament
lexchided.

rliemark. And, on this very account, is every contract entered into be-
P^eea man and woman, among Christians, without the Sacrament, i

e of any civil law whatever, nothing else than a sliameful and pernicioiU
fncabiiiage, so strongly condemned by the Church ; and thei-efor

»rriage-bond can never be separated from the Sacrament."

\ The sum of the matter aooms to be this. Wherever it has pleased the,

KOpe to proclaim the Trideutine Decrees, ciril marriage is concubinage.

i is the duty of each concubinary (or party to concubinage), with or

92 APPENDICES.

without tbe consent of the other party, to quit that guilty state. And as
no law of Church or State binds a ooncubinavy to maniage with the other
CO n c 111) i navy, he (or she) la free, so far as the Cliurch of Rome cau create
the freedom, to marry another person.

APPENDIX D (p. 37).

I do not think myself called upon to reply to the statements which Bish-
op Taughan has sought {Pastoral letter, pp. 35-3V) to show, that the fear
of civil war iiltimatGly tni-ucd the scale id the minds of the chief Minis-
ters of 182S, 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 tbe country
had been brought about which made civil war, or somethiog that might
be called civil war, a possibility. Secondly, because I am content with
the reply provided in tbe Concio of Arehbishop Kenrick, c. viii. See Fried-
rich'a DocutneiUa ad iUuslrandum Concilium Yaticamim, vol. i. p. 219.
The statements 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 equality, but that, as
those statements did not avail to conciliate the Ministers of 1829, they
tlten materially felt back upon the true ones.

To show, however, how long a time had to pass before the poison conld
obtain possession of tbe body, I point, without comment, to the subjoined
statement, anonymous, but, so far as I know, uncontradicted, and given
with minute particnlai's, which would have made the exposure of false-
hood pcrfeetiy easy. It is taken from the Cornish Telegraph of Decem-
ber 9, 1874, and is signed Clericus. It follows a corresponding statement
with regard to America, which is completely corroborated by Ai-chbishop
Kenrick in his Concio : see Friedricii's Documfnta, vol. i. p. 215.

' Of a painful alteration in another popular work, Keenan'a Con(roveT-_
aial Catechism (London, Catholic Publishing and Book-selling Company,
53 New Bond Street), I can speak from two gravely diflering copies, both
professedly of the same edition, now lying before me. This is so singu-
lar a case that I venture to give it in a little detail. Kecnan's Cate-
chism has been very extensively used in Great Britain and America. In
liis preface to the third edition, the author speaks of it as " having the
high approbation of ArchbUhop Hughes, the Kigbt Rev. Drs. Kyle aad

APPENDICES.

Carrwihcre ; as well ns the appioval of the Right Rev. Dr. Gillis, and
Right Rev. Dr. Murdoch." These last-named four ecclesiastics were
ar9-apo8tolic of their respective districta in Scotland, and their Beparate
episcopal approbntiona are picfixcd to the Catechism; those of Bishops

Carrulhers and Kyle are dated, respectively, lOih and 15th of April, ! 846;
those of Bishops Gillis and Murdoch, Hth and 19th of November, 1853.

'Thns this work was authenticated by a well-known American arah-
bishop and four British bishops thoroughly familiar with the teaching of
iheir Church, long before Archbishop Manning joined it. Now, at page
112 of one of my copies of the "new edition, corrected by the author,
twenty- fourth thousand," are the following question and answer:

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

II ; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless It be re-
ed and cnfoi-oed by the teaching body — that is, by the bishops of tl
rch."
[t would be satisfactory if Archbishop Manning would explain ho-i
statement to Mr. Bennett squares with this statement of Kcenan'f
with that of the 50 Seasons.
3ut, further, it would bo highly satisfactory if Archbishop Manning, or
e representative of the "Catholic Publishing and Book-seliing Compa-
would explain how it came to pass that, on the passing of the Vati-
I ..^ decree, apparently while this very edition of Keenan'a CatechUm was
passing through the press, the above crucial question and answer were
luietly dropped out, though no intimation whatsoever was given that
tal alteration was made in the remainder of the edition. Had a
tte been appended, intimating that this change had become needful, no
ieclion, of course, could have been made. But no word has been iu-
■ted to announce or explain this omission of so material a passage;
lile the utmost pains have been taken, and, I must add, with great suc-
I, to pass off this gravely altered book as being identical with the rest
the edition. The title-pages of both copies alike profess that it is the
lew edition, corrected by the author" (who was in his grave before the
itican Council was dreamed of); both profess to be of the "twenty
;rth thousand;" both have the same episcopal approbations and pref^
both are paged alike throughout; so that, from title-page to index,
ilh copies are, apparently, identical. I have very often, placed both in
hands of friends, and asked if they could detect any difference, but
[ve always fonnd they did not. The Roman Catholic book-sellers,

lie

1

94 APPENDICES.

Messrs. Kelly and MeBsrs. Gill, in Dublin, from whom I purchased a num-
ber of copies in Augast, 1871, were equally unaware of tbis change; both'
believed that the Publishing Company had supplied them with the same
book, and both expressed strongly their surprise at finding the change
made without notice. Another Dublin Roman Catholic book-seller was
very indignant at this imposition, and strongly urged me to espose it.
It is no accidental slip of the pi-ess; for while all the earliest copies of
the edition I bought from Messrs. Kelly contained the question and an-
swer, they wei-e omitted in all the later copies of Messrs, GiU'a supply.
The omission is very neatly, cleverly made by a slight widening of the
spaces between the questions aud answers on page 112 and the beginning
of page 113 ; so skillfully managed that nobody would be at all likely to
notice the differcnce in these pages of the two copies, uifless be carefully^
looked, as I did, for the express purpose of seeing if both alike contained
this question aud answer.'

APPENDIX E (|>. 31).

Hetract/rom "Hie Catholic Question-' addressed to the Freeholders of Che
County of York on the. General Election of 1826, p. 31.

'The Catholic religion has three great leras; first in its commencement'
to the Dark Ages ; then from the middle centuries down to the Refonna-
lion ; 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 object
are not the same ; it is a phantom, both in theory and practice, to what it
once was ; and yet the bigots di'aw all their argnments from the Middle
Ages, aud, passing all the manifest alterations of modem times, set up a
cry about the enormities 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 hang a faithful, tried domestic, who had served
you forty years, because he had committed some potty theft when he was
a boy. It is the most illiberal and the most unjustifiable mode of aid-
ing, 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 hero charged by the Uberal electors of York-
shire with reviving mediieval Romanism, itr« not Vatic-onists, but Protect-

A^PENDICESl

, A bigots, whose sinister predictions the Vaticaiiists have done, and a
! liug, their best to verify.

Both by reason of the language of this extract, and of its being tatenl
.'i: of the actual working avniory of one of the great electioneering Strug* 1
_lts for the County of York, which then much predominated in impor-
tance over every other constituency of the United Kingdom, it is itnpor- J
tant- It shows by direct evidence how the mitigated proft'SBions of the']
dav tobl, and justly told, on the popular mind of England.

APPENDIX F {p. 43).

I. From the Decree,

'Et priirni declarat, quod ipsa in Spiritu Sancto legitimfe congregata,,'
concilium generate facien9,et eccleaiam Catholieam i-eprresentans, potest»-J
tem a Christo immediatft habet, cui quilibet cujusque Btatfla vel dignitatis, I
etiam si papalis existat, obedire tenetur m hie qua pertinent adfidem et' I
extirpationem dicti schismatis, et reforraationem dictte ecolesias in capite-^
et in memhria,' — Cone. Const. Sess. v.; Zabbe et Cosaart, torn. xii. p. 22.

H. From the account of the Pope's confirmation.

' Qnihus eic factis, eacctissimua dominiis iioster papa dixit, respondendo
ad prsedicta, quod omnia et singula determinata conclusa et decreta in
materiia Ji^i per prresens concilium, conciliariter tenore et inviolabiliter
observare volebat, et nnnquara contraire quoquo raodo. Ipsaquc sic con-
ciliariter facta approhat et ratificat, et non aliter, nee alio modo.' — Cone.
Const. Sess. xlv. ; Lahbe et Cossarl, torn, xii, p. 253.

APPENDIX G (p. 40).

Zahfie, Concilia, x. 112T, ed. Pans, 1671, Canon 11.

'Obedite prcBposUis vestria,et mbjaeete illis; ipsi enim previffllant p
animaltis vestris,tanquam rationem redditwi; Paulas magnns ApostoIaBW
prscepit. Itaqne beatissimum Papam Nicolaum tanquam org.inum Sanc-
it Spiritnfl habentca,' necnon ct sanctissimiim Hadrianum Papam, sncces-
siirem ejus, definimua atque sanciraua, etiara omnia qure ah eis synodicij
per diversa tempora exposita sunt ct promalgata, tarn pro de/ensione o

' In ihe Creek, ibid. p. 11C7, luf ipyavov roC ayiou nvii/iitToi; fx'>,»"''f-

AITENDICKS.

eCatii ConstantinopoiUanomm eccleaice, et summi saeerdotis ejus, Ignatii
videlicet^ aaiiotiaaimi Patriarchm, quam etiampro Fhotii, rieophyti et inva-
sorisj expulsioue ac condemnatioiie, servari semper et cuslodirl cum expoai-
tis capitviis immutilata politer et iUcBsa.'
The Canon then goes on to euact penaltiea.

APPENDIX n (p. 55).

It appears to me that Archbishop Manning has completely misappi-e-
lieuded tlie histovy of the settlement of Maryland and the establishment
of toleration there for all believera in tlie Holy Trinity. It was a wise
measure, for which the two Lorda Baltimoi'e, father and son, deserve the
highest honor. But the measure waa really defensive; and its main and
very legitimate purpose plainly was to secure the free exercise of the Ro-
man Catholic religion. Immigration into the colony was by the Charter
free : and only by this and other popular provisions could the tenitory
have been extricated from the grasp of its neighbors in Virginia, who
claimed it as their own. It was apprehended that the Puritans would
tiood it, as they did: and it seems cei-tain that but for this excellent pro-
vision, the handful of Roman Catholic founders would have been unable
to hold theu' ground. The facts arc given in Bancroft's History ofl/te
United States, vol. i. chap. vii.

I feel it necessary, in concluding this answer, to stale that Archbishop
Manning has fallen into most serious inaocuracy in his letter of Novem-
ber 10 (p. 6), where he describes my Expostulation as the firet event
which has overcast a friendship of forty-fiyo years. I allude to the sub-
ject with regret; and without entering into details.

1

DO NOT REMOVE ]
OR

I