A letter addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr. Gladstone's recent expostulation

1. A letter addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr. Gladstone's recent expostulation

A letter addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr. Gladstone's recent expostulation

Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.0)

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 projectto 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 subjectto copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain booksare our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from thepublisher 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 thepublic and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps toprevent 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 forpersonal, non-commercial purposes.

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

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them findadditional 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 justbecause 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 othercountries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use ofany specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manneranywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability 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 readersdiscover 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/|

Digitized by LiOOQIC

SOT $>SH£S&<

I The Vatican Decrees and Civil Allegiance. By His

Grace Arcfchfoftop Manning.t3g~ The above f 6rk will be printed from advance sheets.

IL The Oflkeof Holy Week, according to the Roman Missaland previary, in Latin and English. This is a new, im-pr-.-fd, and enlarged edition, and will be printed fromtarge type. It will be ready for delivery Feb. 1. Cloth,

/a^ibesque, $0 75

IH tflte Mistress of Novices enlightened upon her Duties. .

Translated by a Sister of Mercy. Cloth, . . - 1 50IV" beharbe's Complete Catechism. Translated by Fander.J 0 75

.* Y. The Young Catholic's Illustrated Fifth Reader.

*' 12mo, cloth, 1 25

YL The Young Catholic's Illustrated Sixth Reader.

12mo, cloth, 1 50

VIL The Young Ladies' Illustrated Reader.

12mo, cloth, 1 25

Vm The Life of Father Bernard, C.SS.R. Translated from

the French. 1 vol. 12mo; cloth, . . . - 1 50

IX. The Veil Withdrawn. By Mrs. Craven. 1 vol. 8vo,

1 50

X Life of St. John the Evangelist. Translated from the

French. 1 vol. 12mo, cloth, 2 00

XL Be Not Hasty in Judging. Translated from the French ,by P. a 16mo, 1 00 j

JUST PUBLISHED. |

THE KING'S HIGHWAY: The Catholic Church the Way of Sal- ;vation. proved from the Scriptures. By Be v. A. F. Hewit. 1 vol. 12moT $1 60 !

SACRUM SEPPENARIUM; or, The Seven Gifts of the Holy |Ghost, as exemplified m the Life and Person of the Blessed Virgin Mary*for the Guidance and Instruction of Children. By Rev. Henry Fonnby. 1 [vol. 16mo 1 25 |

ILLUSTRATED CATHOLIC FAMILY ALMANAC for 1875, » j

The Catholic Publication Society,

a WRENCE KEHOE, Gen. Agent, 9 WARREN ST., N. Y. I

A LETTER

ADDRESSED TO

His Grace the Duke of Norfolk,

ON OCCASION OF

Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.

BY

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, D.D.,

OF THE ORATORY.

• • •

•••• • • . • •

• • . •

NEW YORK:THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY,9 Warren Street.

1875.

Digitized by VjOOQIC

u

» • • •

Digitized by VjOOQIC

TO

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF NORFOLK,

Hereditary Earl Marshal of England,Etc., Etc.

-•♦*

My Dear Duke of Norfolk:

When I* yielded to the earnest wish which you, to-gether with many others, urged upon me, that I shouldreply to Mr.' Gladstone's recent Expostulation, a friendsuggested that I ought to ask your Grace's permissionto address my remarks to you. Not that for a momenthe or I thought of implicating you, in any sense ormeasure, in a responsibility which is solely and entire-ly my own; but on a very serious occasion, when suchheavy charges had been made against the Catholics ofEngland by so powerful and so earnest an adversary, itseemed my duty, in meeting his challenge, to gain thesupport, if I could, of a name which is the special re-presentative and the fitting sample of a laity, as zealousfor the Catholic religion as it is patriotic.

You consented with something of the reluctancewhich I had felt myself when called upon to write; for

Digitized by LiOOQIC

it was hard to be summoned at any age, early or late,from a peaceful course of life and the duties of one'sstation, to a scene of war. Still, you consented ; and,for myself, it is the compensation for a very unpleasanttask, that I, who belong to a generation that is fast flit-ting away, am thus enabled, in what is likely to be mylast publication, to associate myself with one, on many-accounts so dear to me,—so full of young promise—whose career is before him*.

/ I deeply grieve that Mr. Gladstone has felt it his*duty to speak with such extraordinary severity of ourReligion and of ourselves. I consider he has committedhimself to a representation of ecclesiastical documentswhich will not hold, and to a view of our position inthe country which we have neither deserved nor can bepatient under. None but the Schola Theolbgorum iscompetent to determine the force of Papal and Synodalutterances, and the exact interpretation of them is awork of time. But so much may be safely said of thedecrees which have lately been promulgated, and of thefaithful wTho have received them, that Mr. Gladstone'saccount, both of them and of us, is neither trustworthynor charitable.

Yet not a little may be said in explanation of a step,which so many of his admirers and well-wishers de-plore. I own to a deep, feeling, that Catholics may ingood measure thank themselves, and no one else, forhaving alienated from them so religious a mind. Thereare those among us, as it must be confessed, who foryears past have conducted themselves as if no responsi-bility attached to wild words and overbearing deeds;who have stated truths in the most paradoxical form,

Digitized by VjOOQIC

and stretched principles till they were close upon snap-ping ; and who at length, having done their best to setthe house on fire, leave to others the task of puttingout the flame. The English people are sufficientlysensitive of the claims of the Pope, without havingthem, as if in defiance, flourished in their faces. Thoseclaims most certainly I am not going to deny; I havenever denied them. I have no intention, now that Ihave to write upon them, to conceal any part of them.And I uphold them as heartily as I recognize my duj:yof loyalty to the constitution, the laws, and the gov-ernment of England. I see no inconsistency in my \being at once a good Catholic and a good Englishman. *Yet it is one thing to be able to satisfy myself as tomy consistency, quite another to satisfy others;and, undisturbed as I am in my own conscience,I have great difficulties in the task before me. I haveone difficulty to overcome in the present excitement ofthe public mind against our Religion, caused partly bythe chronic extravagances of. knots of Catholics hereand there, partly by the vehement rhetoric which is theoccasion of my writing to you. A worse difficulty liesin getting people, as they are commonly found, to putoff the modes of speech and language which are usualwith them, and to enter into scientific distinctions andtraditionary rules of interpretation, which, as being newto them, appear evasive and unnatural. And a third •difficulty, as I may call it, is this—that in so very widea subject, opening so great a variety of questions, andof opinions upon them, while it will be simply necessaryto take the objections made against us and our faith,one by one, readers may think me trifling with their

Digitized by LiOOQIC

patience, because they do not find those points firstdealt with, on which they lay most stress themselves.

But I have said enough by way of preface ; andwithout more delay turn to Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The main question which Mr. Gladstone has startedI consider to be this:—Can Catholics be trustworthy *subjects of the State ? has not a foreign Power a holdover their consciences such, that it may at any time beused to the serious perplexity and injury of the civilgovernment under which they live ? Not that Mr.Gladstone confines himself to these questions, for hegoes out of his way, I am sorry to say, to taunt us withour loss of mental and moral freedom, a vituperationwhich is not necessary for his purpose at all. Heinforms us too that we have " repudiated ancient his-tory," and are rejecting" modern thought," and thatour Church has been " refurbishing her rusty tools,"and has been lately aggravating, and is likely still moreto aggravate, our state of bondage. I think it unwor-thy of Mr. Gladstone's high character thus to haveinveighed against us; what intellectual manliness isleft to us, according to him ? yet his circle of acquaint-ance is too wide, and his knowledge of his countrymenon the other hand top accurate, for him not to knowthat he is bringing a great amount of odium and badfeeling upon excellent men, whose only offence is theirreligion. The more intense is the prejudice withwhich we are regarded by whole classes of men, the lessis there of generosity in his pouring upon us superflu-ous reproaches. The graver the charge, which is thedirect occasion of his writing against us, the more care-Digitized by LiOOQ IC

ful should he be not to prejudice judge and jury to ourdisadvantage. No rhetoric is needed in Englandagainst an unfortunate Catholic at anytime; but solittle is Mr. Gladstone conscious of his treatment of usthat in one place of his Pamphlet, strange as it mayseem, he makes-it his boast that he has been careful to" do nothing towards importing passion into what ismatter of pure argument/' pp. 15, 16. I venture to^think he will one day be sorry for what he has said.

tlowever, we must take things as we find them ;and what I propose to do is this: to put aside, unlessit comes directly in my way, his accusation againstus of repudiating ancient history, rejecting modernthought, and renouncing our mental freedom, and toconfine myself for the most part to what he principallyinsists upon, that Catholics, if they act consistentlywith their principles, cannot "be loyal subjects. I shallnot, however, omit notice of his attack upon our moraluprightness.

The occasion and the grounds of Mr. Gladstone'simpeachment of us, if I understand him, are as follows:—He was alarmed, as a statesman, ten years ago by thePope's Encyclical of December 8, and by the Syllabusof Erroneous Propositions which, by the Pope's au-thority, accompanied its transmission to the bishops.Then came the Definitions of the Vatican Council in1870, upon the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal in-fallibility of the Pope. And lastly, as the event whichturned alarm into indignation, and into the duty ofpublic remonstrance, " the Roman Catholic Prelacy ofIreland thought fit to procure the rejection of" the.Irish University Bill of February, 1873, " by the direct

Digitized by LiOOQIC

influence which they exercised over a certain numberof Irish Members of Parliament, etc.," p. 60. Thisstep on the part of the bishops showed, if I understandhim, the new and mischievous force which had beenacquired at Rome by the late acts there, or at leastleft him at liberty, by causing his loss of power, to de-nounce it. " From that time forward the situationwas changed/' and an opening was made for a " broadpolitical discussion " on the subject of the Catholic re-ligion and its professors, and " a debt to the countryljad to be disposed of." That debt, if I am right, willbe paid, ii he can ascertain, on behalf of the country,that there is nothing in the Catholic Religion to hinderits professors from being as loyal as other subjects ofthe State, and that the See of Rome cannot interferewith their civil duties so as to give the civil powertrouble or alarm. The main ground on which he reliesfor the necessity of some such inquiry is, first, the textof the authoritative documents of 1864 and 1870; next,and still more, the ammus which they breathe, and thesustained aggressive spirit which they disclose; and,thirdlyr the daring deed of aggression in 1873, whenthe Pope, acting (as it is alleged) upon the Irish Mem-bers of Parliament, succeeded in ousting from their seatsa ministry who, besides past benefits, were at that verytime doing for Irish Catholics, and therefore ousted fordoing, a special service.

Now, it would be preposterous and officious in meto put myself forward as champion for the VenerablePrelacy of Ireland, or to take upon myself the part ofadvocate and representative of the Holy See. " Nontali auxilio "; in neither character could I come forward

Digitized by LiOOQIC

without great presumption; not the least for thisreason, because I cannot know the exact points whichare really the gist of the affront, which Mr. Gladstoneconceives he has sustained, whether from the onequarter or from the other; yet in a question so nearlyinteresting myself as that February bill, which hebrought into the House, in great sincerity and kindness,for the benefit of the Catholic University in Ireland, Imay be allowed to say thus much—that I, who nowhave no official relation to the Irish Bishops, and amnot in any sense in the counsels of Rome, felt at once,when I first saw the outline of that bill, the greatestastonishment on reading one of its provisions, and adread which painfully affected me, lest Mr. Gladstoneperhaps was acting on an understanding with the Ca-tholic Prelacy. I did not see how in honour they couldaccept it. It was possible, did the question come overagain, to decide in favor of the Queen's Colleges, andto leave the project of a Catholic University alone.The Holy See might so have decided in 1847. But ator about that date, three rescripts had come from Romein favor of a distinctively Catholic Institution; a Na-tional Council had decided in its favour; large offers ofthe Government had been rejected; great commotionshad been caused in the political world, munificent con-tributions had been made, all on the sole principle thatCatholic teaching was to be upheld in the country in-violate. If, then, for the sake of a money grant, orother secular advantage, this ground of principle wasdeserted, and Catholic youths after all were allowed toattend the lectures of men of no religion, or of the Pro-testant, the contest of thirty ye?irs would have been stul-

Bigiti;

Google

tified, and the Pope and the Bishops would seem to havebe9n playing a game, while putting forward the pleaof conscience and religious duty. I hoped that theclause in the Bill, which gave me such uneasiness,cauld have been omitted from it; but, anyhow, it wasan extreme relief to me when the papers announcedthat the Bishops had expressed their formal dissatis- ,faction with it.

They determined to decline a gift laden with sucha condition, and who can blame them for so doing ?who can be surprised that they should now do whatthey did in 1847 ? what new move in politics was it, ifthey so determined ? what was there in it of a fac-tious character? Is the Catholic Irish interest theonly one which is not to be represented in the Houseof Commons ? Why is not that interest as much amatter of right as any other? I fear to expose myown ignorance of Parliamentary rules and proceedings,but I had supposed that the railway interest, and whatis called the publican interest, were very powerful there ;in Scotland, too, I believe, a government has a formi-dable party to deal with; and, to revert to Ireland, thereare the Home-rulers, who have objects in view quitedistinct from, or contrary tov those of the Catholichierarchy. As to the Pope, looking at the surface ofthings, there is nothing to suggest that he interfered,there was no necessity of interference, on so plain apoint; and, when an act can be sufficiently accountedfor without introducing an hypothetical cause, it is badlogic to introduce it. Speaking according to my lights,I altogether disbelieve the interposition of Rome inthe matter. In the proceedings which they adopted,

Digitized

by Google

the Bishops were only using civil rights, common toall, which others also used and in their own way.Why might it not be their duty to promote the inte-rests of their religion by means of their political op-portunities? Is there no Exeter Hall interest? Ithought it was a received theory of our ReformedConstitution that Members of Parliament were repre-sentatives, and in some sort delegates, of their consti-tuents, and that the strength of each interest wasshown, and the course of the nation determined, bythe divisions in the House of Commons. I recollectthe Times intimating its regret, after one general elec-tion, that there was no English Catholic in the newHouse, on the ground that every class and partyshould be represented there. Surely the Catholic reli-gion has not a small party in Ireland ; why then shouldit not have a corresponding number of exponents anddefenders at Westminster? So clear does this seem tome, that I think there must be some defect in myknowledge of facts to Explain Mr. Gladstone's surpriseand displeasure at the conduct of the Irish Prelacy in1873 J yet I suspect none ; and, if there be none, thenhis unreasonableness in this instance of Ireland makesit not unlikely that he is unreasonable also in hisjudgment of the Encyclical, Syllabus, and VaticanDecrees.

However, the Bishops, I believe, not only opposedMr. Gladstone's bill, but, instead of it, they asked forsome money grant towards the expenses of their Uni-versity. If so, their obvious argument was this—thatCatholics formed the great majority of the populationof Ireland, and it was not fair that the Protestant mi-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

nority should have all that was bestowed in endow-ment or otherwise upon Education. To this the reply,I suppose, would be, that it was not Protestantism butliberal education that had the money, and that, if theBishops chose to give up their own principles and actas Liberals, they might have the benefit of it too. Iam not concerned here with these arguments, but Iwish to notice the position which the Bishops wouldoccupy in urging such a request:—I must not say thatthey were Irishmen first and Catholics afterwards, butI do say that in such a demand they spoke not simplyas Catholic Bishops, but as the Bishops of a Catholicnation. They did not speak from any promptings ofthe Encyclical, Syllabus, or Vatican Decrees. Theyclaimed as Irishmen a share in the endowments of thecountry; and has not Ireland surely a right to speakin such a matter, and might not her Bishops fairlyrepresent her? It seems to me a great mistake tothink that everything that is done by the Irish Bish-ops and clergy is done on an ecclesiastical motive;why not on a national? but if so, such acts have no-thing to do with Rome. I know well what simplefirm faith the great body of the Irish people have, andhow they put the Catholic Religion before anythingelse in the world. It is their comfort, their joy, theirtreasure, their boast, their compensation for a hundredworldly disadvantages ; but who can deny that in poli-tics their conduct at times—nay, more than at times—has had a flavour rather of their nation than of theirChurch ? Only in the last general election this wassaid, when they were so earnest for Home Rule.Why,-then, must Mr. Gladstone come down upon the

Digitized

by Google

Catholic Religion, because the Irish love dearly theGreen Island, and its interests? Ireland is not theonly country in which politics, or patriotism, or partyhas been so closely associated with religion in thenation or a class, that it is difficult to say which of thevarious motive principles was uppermost. " ThePuritan/' says Macaulay, "prostrated himself in thedust before his Maker, but he set his foot on the neclcof his king." I am not accusing such a man of hypo-crisy on account of this; having great wrongs, as heconsidered, both in religious and temporal matters, andthe authors of these distinct wrongs being the samepersons, he did not nicely discriminate between theacts which he did as a patriot and the acts which hedid as a Puritan. And so as regards Irishmen, theydo not, cannot, distinguish between their love of Ire-land and their love of religion; their patriotism isreligious, and their religion is strongly tinctured withpatriotism ; and it is hard to recognize the abstractand ideal Ultramontane, pure and simple, in the con-crete exhibition of him in flesh and blood as found inthe polling booth or in his chapel. I do not see howthe Pope can be made answerable for him in any ofhis political acts during the last fifty years.

This leads me to a subject, of which Mr. Gladstonemakes a good deal in his Pamphlet. I will say of a greatman, whom he quotes, and for whose memory I have agreat respect, I mean Bishop Doyle, that there was justa little tinge of patriotism in the way in which, on oneoccasion, he speaks of the Pope. I dare say any of uswould have done the same, in the heat of a greatstruggle for national liberty, for he said nothing but

Digitized by LiOOQIC

what was true and honest; I only mean that the ener-getic language which he used was not exactly such aswould have suited the atmosphere of Rome. He saysto Lord Liverpool, " We are taunted with the pro-ceedings of Popes. What, my Lord, have we Catho-lics to do with the proceedings of Popes, or why shouldwe be made accountable for them ? " p. 27. Now, withsome proceedings of Popes, we Catholics have verymuch to do indeed ; but, if the context of his words isconsulted, I make no doubt it will be found that hewas referring to certain proceedings of certain Popes,when he said that Catholics had no part of their re*sponsibility. Assuredly there are certain acts of Popesin which no one would like to have part. Then, again,his words require some pious interpretation when hesays that " the allegiance due to the king and theallegiance due to the Pope, are as distinct and asdivided in their nature as any two things can possiblybe," p. 30. Yes, in their nature, in the abstract, butnot in the particular case; for a heathen State mightbid me throw incense upon the altar of Jupiter, andthe Pope would bid me not to do so. I venture tomake the same remark on the Address of the IrishBishops to their clergy and laity, quoted at p. 31, andon the Declaration of the Vicars Apostolic in England,ibid.

But I must not be supposed for an instant to mean,in what I have said, that the venerable men, to whomI have referred, were aware of any ambiguity either insuch statements as the above, or in others which weredenials of the Pope's infallibility. Indeed, one of themat an earlier date, 1793, Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dub-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

lin, had introduced into one of his Pastorals the sub-ject, which Mr. Gladstone considers they so summarilydisposed of. The Archbishop says:—" Many Catholicscontend that the Pope, when teaching the universalChurch, as their supreme visible head and pastor, assuccessor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises ofspecial assistance made to him by Jesus Christ, is in-fallible; and that his decrees and decisions in thatcapacity are to be respected as rules of faith, when theyare dogmatical or confined to doctrinal points of faithand morals. Others deny this, and require the ex-pressed or tacit acquiescence of the Church, assembledor dispersed, to stamp infallibility on his dogmaticaldecrees. Until the Church shall decide upon thisquestion of the Schools, either opinion may be adoptedby individual Catholics, without any breach of Catho-lic communion or peace. The Qitholics of Irelandhave lately declared, that it is not an article of theCatholic faith ; nor are they thereby required to be-lieve or profess that the Pope is infallible, withoutadopting or abjuring either of the recited opinionswhich are open to discussion, while the Church con-tinues silent about them." The Archbishop thus ad-dressed his flock, at the time when he was informingthem that the Pope had altered the oath which wastaken by the Catholic Bishops.

As to the language of the Bishops in 1826, we mustrecollect that at that time the clergy, both of Irelandand England, were educated in Gallican opinions.They took those opinions for granted, and theythought, if they went so far as to ask themselves thequestion, that the definition of Papal Infallibility was

Digitized by LiOOQIC

simply impossible. Even among those at the VaticanCouncil, who themselves personally believed in it, Ibelieve there were Bishops who, until the actual defi-nition had been passed, thought that such a definitioncould not be made. Perhaps they would argue that,though the historical evidence was sufficient for theirown personal conviction, it was not sufficiently clear ofdifficulties to make it safe to impose it on Catholics asa dogma. Much more would this be the feeling of theBishops in 1826. " How," they would ask, "can itever come to pass that a majority of our order shouldfind it their duty to relinquish their prime prerogative,and to make the Church take the shape of a puremonarchy ? " They would think its definition as muchout of the question, as that, in twenty-five years aftertheir time, there would be a hierarchy of thirteen Bi-shops in England, with a Cardinal for Archbishop.

But, all this while, such modes of thinking wereforeign altogether to the minds of the entourage of theHoly See. Mr. Gladstone himself says, and the Dukeof Wellington and Sir Robert Peel must have knownit as well as he, " The Popes have kept up, with com-paratively little intermission, for well nigh a thousandyears, their claim to dogmatic infallibility/* p. 28.Then, if the Pope's claim to infallibility was so patenta fact, could they ever suppose that he could bebrought to admit that it was hopeless to turn thatclaim into a dogma? In truth, those ministers werevery little interested in that question ; as was said in aPetition or Declaration, signed among others by Dr.Troy, it was " immaterial in a political light; " but, evenif they thought it material, or if there were other

Digitized by LiOOQIC

questions they wanted to ask, why go to BishopDoyle? If they wanted to obtain some real infor-mation about the probabilities of the future, why didthey not go to headquarters ? Why did they potterabout the halls of Universities in this matter of Papalexorbitances, or rely upon the pamphlets or examina-tions of Bishops whom they never asked for theircredentials ? Why not go at once to Rome ?

The reason is plain : it was a most notable instance,with a grave consequence, of what is a fixed traditionwith us the English people, and a great embarrassmentto every administration in their dealings with Catho-lics. I recollect, years ago, Dr. Griffiths, Vicar Apos-tolic of the London District, giving me an account ofan interview he had with the late Lord Derby, then Isuppose Colonial Secretary. I understood him to saythat* Lord Derby was in perplexity at the time, onsome West India matter, in which Catholics were con-cerned, because he could not find their responsiblerepresentative. He wanted Dr. Griffiths to undertakethe office, and expressed something of disappointmentwhen the Bishbp felt obliged to decline it. A chronicmalady has from time to time its paroxysms, and thehistory on which I am now engaged is a serious in-stance of it. I think it is impossible that the Britishgovernment could have entered into formal negotia-tions with the Pope, without its transpiring in thecourse of them, and its becoming perfectly clear, thatRome could never be a party to such a pledge as Eng-land wanted, and that no pledge from Catholics wasof any value to which Rome was not a party.

But no; they persisted in an enterprise which was

Digitized by LiOOQIC

hopeless in its first principle, for they thought to breakthe indissoluble tie which bound together the head andthe members,—and doubtless Rome felt the insult,though she might think it prudent not to notice it.France was not the keystone of the ecumenical power,though her Church was so great and so famous; norcould the hierarchy of Ireland, in spite of its fidelity tothe Catholic faith, give any pledge of the future to thestatesmen who required one ; there was but one See,whose word was worth anything in the matter, " thatchurch " (to use the language of the earliest of ourDoctors) " to which the faithful all round about arebound to have recourse." Yet for three hundredyears it has been the official rule with England toignore the existence of the Pope, and to deal withCatholics in England, not as his children, but assectaries of the Roman Catholic persuasion. Napo-leon said to his envoy, " Treat with the Pope as if hewas master of 100,000 men." So clearly did he, frommere worldly sagacity, comprehend the Pope's placein the then state of European affairs, as to say that," if the Pope had not existed, it would have been wellto have created, him for that occasion, as the Romanconsuls created a dictator in difficult circumstances."(Alison's Hist. ch. 35.) But we, in the instance of thegreatest, the oldest power in Europe, a Church whosegrandeur in past history demanded, one would think,some reverence in our treatment of her, the mother ofEnglish Christianity, who, whether her subsequentconduct had always been motherly or not, had been atrue friend to us in the beginnings of our history, herwe have not only renounced, but, to use a familiar

Digitized by LiOOQIC

word, we have absolutely cut: Time has gone on andwe have no relentings; to-day, as little as yesterday,do we understand that pride was not- made for man,nor the cuddling of resentments for a great people. Iam entering into no theological question: I am speak-ing all along of mere decent secular intercourse be-tween England and Rome. A hundred grievanceswould have been set right on their first uprising, hadthere been a frank diplomatic understanding betweenthe two great powers; but, on the contrary, evenwithin the last few weeks, the present Ministry hasdestroyed any hope of a better state of things bywithdrawing from the Vatican the make-shift channelof intercourse which had of late years been permittedthere.

The world's politics has its laws; and such abnormalcourses as England has pursued liave their Nemesis.An event has taken place which, alas, already makesitself felt in* issues, unfortunate for English Catholicscertainly, but also, as I think, for our country. Agreat Council has been called ; and, as England hasfor so long a time ignored Rome, Rome, I suppose, itmust be said, has in turn ignored England. I do notmean of set purpose ignored, but as the natural conse-quence of our act. Bishops brought from the cornersof the earth in 1870, what could they know of Englishblue books and Parliamentary debates in the years1826 and 1829? It was an extraordinary gathering, andits possibility, its purpose, and its issue, were alikemarvellous, as depending on a coincidence of strangeconditions, which, as might be said beforehand, nevercould take place. Such was the long reign of the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Pope, in itself a marvel, as being the sole exception toa recognized ecclesiastical tradition. Only a Pontiff sounfortunate, so- revered, so largely loved, so populareven with Protestants, with such a prestige of longsovereignty, with such claims on the Bishops aroundhim, both of age and of paternal gracious acts, onlysuch a man could have harmonized and guided to theconclusion, which he pointed out, an assembly so vari-ously composed. And, considering the state of theo-logical opinion seventy years before, not less marvel-lous was the concurrence of all but a few out of somany hundred Bishops in the theological judgment, solong desired at Rome; the protest made by someeighty or ninety, at the termination of the Council,against the proceedings of the vast majority lying, notagainst the truth of the doctrine then defined, butagainst its opportuneness. Nor less to be noted is theneglect, of the Catholic powers to send representativesto the Council, who might have laid before the Fathersits political bearings. For myself, I did not call it in-opportune, for times and seasons are known to Godalone, and persecution may be as opportune, thoughnot so pleasant as peace ; nor, in accepting as a dogmawhat I had ever held as a truth, could I be doing vio-lence to any theological view or conclusion of my own ;nor has the acceptance of it any logical or practicaleffect whatever, as I consider, in weakening my allegi-ance to Queen Victoria ; but there are few Catholics,I think, who will not deeply regret, though no one bein fault, that the English and Irish Prelacies of 1826,did not foresee the possibility of the Synodal deter-minations of 1870, nor will they wonder that States-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

22 Introductory Remarks.

men should feel themselves aggrieved, that stipula-tions, which they considered necessary for Catholicemancipation, should have been, as they may think,rudely cast to the winds.

And now I must pass from the mere accidents ofthe controversy to its essential points, and I cannottreat them to the satisfaction of Mr. Gladstone, unlessI go back a great way, and be allowed to speak of theancient Catholic Church.

Digitized

by Google

When Mr. Gladstone accuses us of " repudiatingancient history/' he means the ancient history of theChurch; also. I understand him to be viewing that his-tory under a particular aspect. There are many aspectsin which Christianity presents itself to us ; for instance,the aspect of social usefulness, or of devotion, or againof theology ; but, though he in one place glances at thelast of these aspects, his own view of it is its relationtowards the civil power. He writes " as one of theworld at large ; " as a " layman who has spent most andthe best years of his life in the observation and practiceof politics ; " p. 7, and, as a statesman, he. naturallylooks at the Church on its political side. Accordingly,in his title-page, in which he professes to be expostulat-ing with us for accepting the Vatican Decrees, he docsso, not for any reason whatever, but because of theirincompatibility with our civil allegiance. This is thekey-note of his impeachment of us. As a public man,he has only to do with the public action and effect ofour Religion, its aspect upon national affairs, on ourcivil duties, on our foreign interests; and he tells usthat our Religion has a bearing and behaviour towardsthe State utterly unlike that of ancient Christianity, sounlike that we may be said to repudiate what Christian-ity was in its first centuries, so unlike to what it wasthen, that we have actually forfeited the proud boastof being " Ever one and the same ; " unlike, I say, in

23

Digitized by LiOOQIC

this, that our action is so antagonistic to the State'saction, and our claims so menacing to civil peace andprosperity. Indeed ! then I suppose our Lord and HisApostles, that St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Poly-carp of Smyrna, and St. Cyprian of Carthage, and St.Laurence of Rome, that St. Alexander and St. Paul ofConstantinople, that St. Ambrose of Milan, that PopesLeo, John, Sylverian, Gregory, and Martin, all mem-bers of the " undivided Church," cared supremely, andlaboured successfully, to cultivate peaceful relationswith the government of Rome. They had no doctrinesand precepts, no rules of life, no isolation and aggres-siveness, which caused them to be considered, in spiteof themselves, the enemies of the human race ! MayI not, without disrespect, submit to Mr. Gladstone thatthis is very paradoxical ? Surely it is our fidelity tothe history of our forefathers, and not its repudiation,which Mr. Gladstone dislikes in us. When, indeed,was it in ancient times that the State did not showjealousy of the Church ? Was it when Decius andDioclesian slaughtered their thousands who had ab-jured the religion of old Rome? or, was it when Atha-nasius was banished to Treves? or when Basil, on theImperial Prefect's crying out, " Never before did anyman make so free with me," answered, " Perhaps younever before fell in with a Bishop? " or when Chrysos-torn was sent off to Cucusus, to be worried to death byan Empress ? Go through the long annals of ChurchHistory, century after century, and say, was there ever*a time when her Bishops, and notably the Bishop ofRome, were slow to give their testimony in behalf ofthe moral and revealed law and to suffer for their obe-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

dience to it, or forgot that they had a message to deli-ver to the world ? not the task merely of administeringspiritual consolation, or of making the sick-bed easy, orof training up good members of society, and of " serv-ing tables," (though all this was included in their rangeof duty); but specially and directly to deliver a mes-sage to the world, a definite message to high and low,from the world's Maker, whether men would hear orwhether they would forbear ? The history surely ofthe Church in all past times, ancient as well as medie-val, is the very embodiment of that tradition of Apos-tolical independence and freedom of speech which inthe eyes of man is her great offence now.

Nay, that independence, I may say, is even one ofher Notes or credentials; for where shall we find it ex-cept in the Catholic Church ? " I spoke of Thy testi-monies," says the Psalmist," even before kings, and I wasnot ashamed." This verse, I think Dr. Arnold used tosay, rose up in judgment against the Anglican Church,in spite of its real excellences. As to the OrientalChurches, every one knows in what bondage they lie,whether they are under the rule of the Czar or of theSultan. Such is the actual fact that, whereas it is thevery mission of Christianity to bear witness to theCreed and Ten Commandments in a world which isaverse to them, Rome is now the one faithful repre-sentative, and thereby is heir and successor of thatfreespoken dauntless Church of old, whose traditionsMr. Gladstone says the said Rome has repudiated.

I have one thing more to say on the subject of the" semper eadem." In truth, this fidelity to the ancientChristian system, seen in modern Rome, was the lumi-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

nous fact which more than any other turned men'sminds at Oxford forty years ago to look towards herwith reverence, interest, and love. It affected indi-vidual minds variously, of course ; some it even broughton eventually to conversion, others it only restrainedfrom active opposition to her claims; but no one couldread the Fathers, and determine to be their disciple,without feeling that Rome, like a faithful steward, hadkept in fulness and in vigour what his own communionhad let drop. The Tracts for the Times were foundedon a deadly antagonism to what in these last centurieshas been called Erastianism or Caesarism. Their wri-ters considered the Church to be a divine creation," not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,"the Ark of Salvation, the Oracle of Truth, the Bride ofChrist, with a .message to all men everywhere, and aclaim on their love and obedience ; and, in relation tothe civil power, the object of that promise of the Jew-ish prophets, " Behold, I will lift up My Hand to theGentiles, and will set up My standard to the peoples,kings and their queens shall bow down to thee withtheir face toward the earth, and they shall lick up thedust of thy feet." No Ultramontane (so called) couldgo .beyond those writers in the account which theygave of her from the Prophets, and that high notion isrecorded beyond mistake in a thousand passages oftheir writings.

There is a fine passage of Mr. Keble's in the BritishCritic, in animadversion upon a contemporary reviewer.Mr. Hurrell Froude, speaking of the Church of Eng-land, had said that " she was ' united ' to the State asIsrael to Egypt." This shocked the reviewer in qucs-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

tion, who exclaimed in consequence, " The Church isnot united to the State as Israel to Egypt; it is unitedas a believing wife to a husband who threatened toapostatize ; and as a Christian wife so placed would act. . clinging to the connection . . so the Church muststruggle even now, and save, not herself, but the State,from the crime of a divorce." On this Mr. Keblesays," We had thought that the Spouse of the Church wasa very different Person from any or all States, and herrelation to the State through Him very unlike that ofhers, whose duties are summed up in i love, service,cherishing, and obedie?ice! And since the one is exclu-sively of this world, the other essentially of the eternalworld, such an Allianceas the above sentence describes,would have seemed to us, not only fatal, but mon-strous ! " * And he quotes the lines,—

1 Mortua quinetiam jungebat corpora vivis,Componena manibuscjuc manus, at que oribus ora:Tormenti genus ."

It was this same conviction that the Church had rightswhich the State could not touch, and was prone to ig-nore, and which in consequence were the occasion ofgreat troubles between the two, that led Mr. Froude atthe beginning of the movement to translate the lettersof St. Thomas Becket, and Mr. Bowden to write theLife of Hildebrand. As to myself, I will but refer, asto one out of many passages with the same drift, inthe books and tracts which I published at that time, tomy Whit-Monday and Whit-Tuesday Sermons.

* Review of Gladstone's " The State in its Relations with the Church,"October, 1839.

Digitized by VjOOQlC.

I believe a large number of members of the Churchof England at this time are faithful to the doctrinewhich was proclaimed within its pale in 1833, and fol-lowing years; the main difference between them andCatholics being, not as to the existence of certain highprerogatives and spiritual powers in the ChristianChurch, but that the powers which we give to the HolySee, they lodge in her Bishops and Priests, whether asa body or individually. Of course, this is a very im-portant difference, but it does not enter into my argu-ment here. It does seem to me preposterous to chargethe Catholic Church of to-day with repudiating ancienthistory by certain political acts of hers, and thereby-losing her identity, when it was her very likeness inpolitical action to the Church of the first centuries, thathas in our time attracted even to her communion, or atleast to her teaching, not a few educated men, whomade those first centuries their special model.

But I have more to say on this subject, perhaps toomuch, when I go on, as I now do, to contemplate theChristian Church, when persecution was exchanged forestablishment, and her enemies became her children.As she resisted and defied her persecutors, so she ruledher convert people. And surely this was but natural,and will startle those only to whom the subject is new.If the Church is independent of the State, so far as sheis a messenger from God, therefore, should the State,with its high officials and its subject masses, come intoher communion, it is plain that they must at oncechange hostility into submission. There was nomiddle term; either they must deny her claim to

Digitized by LiOOQIC

divinity or humble themselves before it,—that is, as faras the domain of religion extends, and that domain isa wide one. They could not place God and man onone level. We see this principle carried out amongourselves in all sects every day, though with greater orless exactness of application, according to the super-natural power which they ascribe to their ministers orclergy. It is a sentiment of nature, which anticipatesthe inspired command, " Obey them that have the ruleover you, and submit yourselves, for they watch foryour souls."

As regards the Roman Emperors, immediately ontheir becoming Christians, their exaltation of thehierarchy was in proportion to its abject condition inthe heathen period. Grateful converts felt that theycould not do too much in its honour and service.Emperors.bowed the head before the Bishops, kissedtheir hands and asked their blessing. When Constan-tine entered into the presence of the assembled Prelatesat Nicaea, his eyes fell, the colour mounted up into hischeek, and his mien was that of a suppliant; he wouldnot sit, till the Bishops bade him, and he kissed thewounds of the Confessors. He set the example for thesuccessors of his power, nor did the Bishops declinesuch honours. Emperors' wives served them at table;when they did wrong, thty did penance and asked for-giveness. When they quarrelled with them, and wouldbanish them, their hand trembled when they came tosign the order, and refused to do its office, and aftervarious attempts they gave up their purpose. Sol-diers raised to sovereignty asked their recognition andwere refused it. Cities under imperial displeasure

Digitized by LiOOQIC

sought their intervention, and the master of thirtylegions found himself powerless to withstand thefeeble voice of some aged travel-stained stranger.

Laws were passed in favour of the Church ; Bishopscould only be judged by Bishops, and the causes oftheir clergy were withdrawn from the secular courts.Their sentence was final, as if it were the Emperor'sown, and the governors of provinces were bound toput it in execution. Litigants everywhere were allow-ed the liberty of referring their cause to the tribunalof the Bishops, who, besides, became arbitrators on alarge scale in private quarrels; and the public, evenheathens, wished it so. St. Ambrose was sometimes sotaken up with business of this sort, that he had timefor nothing else. St. Austin and Theodoret both com-plain of the weight of such secular engagements, asforced upon them by the importunity of the people.Nor was this all; the Emperors showed their belief inthe divinity of the Church and of its creed by acts ofwhat we should now call persecution. Jews were for-bidden to proselytize a Christian ; Christians were for-bidden to become pagans; pagan rites were abolished,the books of heretics and infidels were burned whole-sale ; their chapels were razed to the ground, and eventheir private meetings were made illegal.

These characteristics of the convert Empire Afrere theimmediate, some of them the logical, consequences, ofits new faith. Had not the Emperors honoured Christi- .anity in its ministers and in its precepts, they wouldnot properly have deserved the name of converts.Nor was it unreasonable in litigants voluntarily to fre-quent the episcopal tribunals, if they got justice done

Digitized by LiOOQIC

to them there better than in the civil courts. As tothe prohibition of heretical meetings, I cannot get my-self quite to believe that Pagans, Marcionites, andManichees had much tenderness of conscience in theirreligious profession, or were wounded seriously by theImperial rescript to their disadvantage. Many of thesesects were of a most immoral character, whether indoctrine or practice ; others were forms of witchcraft;often they were little better than paganism. TheNovatians certainly stand on higher ground ; but onthe whole, it would be most unjust to class such wild,impure, inhuman rites with even the most extravagantand grotesque of American sectaries now. They couldentertain no bitter feeling that injustice was done themin their repression. They did not make free thoughtor private judgment their watch words. The popula-tions- of the Empire did not rise in revolt when itsreligion was changed. There were two broad condi-tions which accompanied the grant of all this ecclesias-tical power and privilege, and made the exercise of itpossible; first, that the people consented to it, se-condly, that it was enforced by the law of the Empire.High and low opened the door to it. The Church ofcourse would say that such prerogatives were rightfullyhers, as being at least congruous grants made to her,on the part of the State, in return for the benefitswhich she bestowed upon it. It was her right to de-mand them, and the State's duty to concede them.This seems to have been the basis of the new state ofsociety. And in fact these prerogatives were in forceand in exercise all through those troublous centurieswhich followed the break-up of the Imperial sway:

Digitized by LiOOQIC

32 The Ancient Church.

and, though the handling of them at length fell into thehands of one see exclusively (on which I shall remarkpresently), the see of Peter, yet the substance andcharacter of these prerogatives, and the Church's claimto possess them, remained untouched. The change jnthe internal allocation of power did not affect the ex-istence and the use of the power itself.

Ranke, speaking of this development of ecclesiasti-cal supremacy upon the conversion of the Empire, re-marks as follows:

" It appears to me that this was the result of an in-ternal necessity. The rise of Christianity involved theliberation of religion from all political elements. Fromthis followed the growth of a distinct ecclesiastical classwith a peculiar constitution. In this separation of theChurch from the State consists, perhaps, the greatest,the most pervading and influential peculiarity of allChristian times. The spiritual and secular powers maycome into near contact, may even stand in the closestcommunity; but they can be thoroughly incorporatedonly at rare conjunctures and for a short period. Theirmutual relations, their position with regard to eachother, form, from this time forward, one of the mostimportant considerations in all history."—The Popes',vol. i., p. io, transL

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Now we come to the distinctive doctrine of theCatholic Religion, the doctrine which separates us fromall other denominations of Christians however nearthey may approach to us in other respects, the claimsof the see of Rome, which have given occasion to Mr.Gladstone's Pamphlet and to the remarks which I amnow making upon it. Of those rights, prerogatives,privileges, and duties, which I have been surveying inthe ancient Church, the Pope is the heir. I shall dwellnow upon this point, as far as it is to my purpose to doso, not treating it theologically (else I must define andprove from Scripture and the Fathers the " Primatusjure divino Romani Pontificis "), but historically, be-cause Mr. Gladstone appeals to history. Instead oftreating it theologically I wish to look with (as it were)secular, or even non-Catholic eyes at the powers claim-ed during the last thousand years by the Pope—that is,only as they lie in the nature of the case, and in thesurface of the facts which come before us in history.

i. I say then the Pope is the heir of the Ecumeni-cal Hierarchy of the fourth century, as being, what Imay call, heir by default. No one else claims or exer-cises its rights or its duties. Is it possible to considerthe Patriarch of Moscow or of Constantinople, heir tothe historical pretensions of St. Ambrose or St. Martin ?Does any Anglican Bishop for the last 300 years recallto our minds the image of St. Basil ? Well, then, hasall that ecclesiastical power, which makes such a show

Digitized by LiOOQIC

in the Christian Empire, simply vanished, or, if not,where is it to be found? I wish Protestants wouldthrow themselves into our minds upon this point; I amnot holding an argument with them; I am only wish-ing them to understand where we stand and how welook at things. There is this great difference of beliefbetween us and them: they'do not believe that Christ

'set up a visible society, or rather kingdom, for the pro-pagation and maintenance of His religion, for a neces-sary home and refuge of His people; but we do. Weknow the kingdom is still on earth: where is it ? If allthat can be found of it is what can be discerned atConstantinople or Canterbury, I say, it has disappeared ;and either there was a radical corruption of Christian-ity from the first, or Christianity came to an end, inproportion as the type of the Nicene Church faded outof the world : for all that we know of Christianity, inancient history, as a concrete fact, is the Church ofAthanasius and his fellows: it is nothing else histori-cally but that bundle of phenomena, that combinationof claims, prerogatives, and corresponding acts, someof which I have recounted above. There is no helpfor it; we cannot take as much as we please, and nomore, of an institution which has a monadic existence.We must either give up the belief in the Church as adivine institution altogether, or we must recognize it inthat communion of which the Pope is the head. Withhim alone and round about him are found the claims,the prerogatives, and duties which we identify with thekingdom set up by Christ. We must take things as

I they are; to believe in a Church, is to believe in thePope. And thus this belief in the Pope and his attri-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

butes, which seems so monstrous to Protestants, isbound up with our being Catholics at all; as our Cath-olicism is with our Christianity. There is nothing thenof wanton bpposition to the powers that be, no dinningof novelties in their startled ears in what is often un-justly called Ultramontane doctrine; there is no per-nicious servility to the Pope in our admission of hispretensions. I say, we cannot help ourselves—Parlia-ment may deal as harshly with us as it will; we shouldnot believe in the Church at all, unless we believed inits visible head.

So it is; the course of ages has fulfilled the pro-phecy and promise, " Thou art Peter, and upon thisrock I will build My Church ; and whatsoever thoushalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, andwhatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed inheaven." That which in substance was possessed bythe Nicene Hierarchy, that the Pope claims now. Ido not wish to put difficulties in my way; but I cannotconceal or smooth over what I believe to be a simpletruth, though the avowal of it will be very unwelcometo Protestants, and, as I fear, to some Catholics. How-ever, I do not call upon another to believe all that Ibelieve on the subject myself. I declare it, as my ownjudgment, that the prerogatives, such as, and, in theway in which, I have described them in substance,which the Church had under the Roman Power, thoseshe claims now, and never, never will relinquish ; claimsthem, not as having received them from a dead Em-pire, but partly by the direct endowment of her DivineMaster, and partly as being a legitimate outcome ofthat endowment; claims them, but not except from

Digitized by LiOOQIC

36 The Papal Church,

o

Catholic populations, not as if accounting the moresublime of them to be of every-day use, but holdingthem as a protection or remedy in great emergenciesor on supreme occasions, when nothing else will serve,as extraordinary and solemn acts of her religious sove-reignty. And our Lord, seeing what would be broughtabout by human means, even had He not willed it, andrecognizing, from the laws which He Himself had im-posed upon human society, that no large communitycould be strong which had no head, spoke the word inthe beginning, as he did to Judah, " Thou art he whomthy brethren shall praise," and then left it to the courseof events to fulfil it.

2. Mr. Gladstone ought to have chosen anotherissue for attack upon us, than the Pope's power. Hisreal difficulty lies deeper; as little permission as heallows to the Pope, would he allow to any ecclesiasticwho would wield the weapons of St. Ambrose and St.Augustine. That concentration of the Church's powerswhich history brings before us should not be the objectof his special indignation. It is not the existence of aPope, but of a Church, which is his aversion. It is thepowers, and not their distribution and allocation in theecclesiastical body which he writes against. A triangleor parallelogram is the same in its substance and na-ture, whichever side is made its base. " The Pontiffs,"says Mr. Bowden, who writes as an Anglican, " exaltedto the kingly throne of St. Peter, did not so muchclaim new privileges for themselves, as deprive theirepiscopal brethren of privileges originally common tothe hierarchy, Even the titles by which those auto-cratical prelates, in the plenitude of their power, de-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Papal Church. 2>1

lighted to style themselves, ' Summus Sacerdos,' ' Pon-tifex Maximus,' ' Vicarius Christi/ ' Papa' itself, had,nearer to the primitive times, been the honourable ap-pellations of every Bishop ; as " Sedes Apostolica"had been the description of every Bishop's throne. Theascription of these titles, therefore, to the Pope only gaveto the terms new force, because that ascription becameexclusive; because, that is, the bishops in general werestripped of honours, to which their claims were as wellfounded as those of their Roman brother, who became,by the change, not so strictly universal as sole Bishop.0{Greg. vii. vol. i. p. 64.)

Say that the Christian polity remained, as historyrepresents it to us in the fourth century, or that nowit was, if that was possible, to revert to such a state,would politicians have less trouble with 1,800 centresof power than they have with one ? Instead of one,with traditionary rules, the trammels of treaties andengagements, public opinion to consult and manage,the responsibility of great interests, and the guaranteefor his behaviour in his temporal possessions, therewould be a legion of ecclesiastics, each bishop with hisfollowing, each independent of the others, each withhis own views, each with extraordinary powers, eachwith the risk of misusing them, all over Christendom.It would be the Anglican theory, made real. It wouldbe an ecclesiastical communism; and, if it did notbenefit religion, at least it would not benefit the civilpower. Take a small illustration :—what interruptionat this time to Parliamentary proceedings, does a smallzealous party occasion, which its enemies call a " merehandful of clergy; " and why? Because its members

Digitized by VjOOQIC

are responsible for what they do to God alone and totheir conscience as His voice. Even suppose it wasonly here or there that episcopal autonomy was vigor-ous; yet consider what zeal is kindled by local interestsand national spirit. One John of Tuam, with a Pope'sfull apostolic powers, would be a greater trial to suc-cessive ministries than an Ecumenical Bishop at Rome.Parliament understands this well, for it exclaimsagainst the Sacerdotal principle. Here, for a secondreason, if our Divine Master has given those greatpowers to the Church, which ancient Christianity tes-tifies, we see why His Providence has also providedthat the exercise of them should be concentrated inone see.

But, anyhow, the progress of concentration was notthe work of the Pope ; it was brought about by thechanges of times and the vicissitudes of nations. Itwas not his fault that the Vandals swept away the Af-rican sees, and the Saracens those of Syria and AsiaMinor, or that Constantinople and its dependenciesbecame the creatures of Imperialism, or that France,England, and Germany would obey none but theauthor of their own Christianity, or that clergy andpeople at a distance were obstinate in sheltering them-selves under the majesty of Rome against their ownfierce kings and nobles or imperious bishops, even tothe imposing forgeries on the world and on the Popein justification of their proceedings. All this will befact, whether the Popes were ambitious or not; andstill it will be fact that the issue of that great changewas a great benefit to the whole of Europe. No onebut a Master, who was a thousand bishops in himself

Digitized by LiOOQIC

at once, could have tamed and controlled, as thePope did, the great and little tyrants of the middleage.

3. This is generally confessed now, even by Pro-testant historians, viz., that the concentration of ec-clesiastical power in those centuries was simply neces-sary for the civilization of Europe. Of course it doesnot follow that the benefits rendered then to theEuropean commonwealth by the political supremacyof the Pope, would, if he was still supreme, be ren-dered in time to come. I have no wish to makeassumptions; yet conclusions short of this will be un-favourable to Mr. Gladstone's denunciation of him.We reap the fruit at this day of his services in thepast. With the purpose of showing this I make arather long extract from Dean Milman's " Latin Chris-tianity ;" he is speaking of the era of Gregory I., andhe says, the Papacy, " was the only power which lay notentirely and absolutely prostrate before the disastersof the times—a power which had an inherentstrength, and might resume its majesty. It was thispower which was most imperatively required to pre-serve all which was to survive out of the crumblingwreck of Roman civilization. To Western Christianitywas absolutely necessary a centre, standing alone,strong in traditionary reverence, and in acknowledgedclaims to supremacy. Even the perfect organizationof the Christian hierarchy rpight in all human probabi-lity have fallen to pieces in perpetual conflict: it mighthave degenerated into a half secular feudal caste, withhereditary benefices more and more entirely subservi-ent to the civil authority, a priesthood of each nation

Digitized by LiOOQIC

or each tribe, gradually sinking to the intellectual orreligious level of the nation or tribe. On the rise of apower both controlling and conservative hung, hu-manly speaking, the life and death of Christianity—ofChristianity as a permanent, aggressive, expansive,and, to a certain extent, uniform system. There mustbe a counterbalance to barbaric force, to the unavoid-able anarchy of Teutonism, with its tribal, or at theutmost national independence, forming a host of small,conflicting, antagonistic kingdoms. All Europe wouldhave been what England was under the Octarchy, whatGermany was when her emperors were weak; and evenher emperors she owed to Rome, to the Church, toChristianity. Providence might have otherwise or-dained ; but it is impossible for a man to imagine bywhat other organising or consolidating force the com-monwealth of the Western nations could have grownup to a discordant, indeed, and conflicting league, butstill a league, with that unity and conformity of man-ners, usages, laws, religion, which have made theirrivalries, oppugnancies, and even their long ceaselesswars, on the whole to issue in the noblest, highest,most intellectual form of civilization known to man...It is impossible to conceive what had been the. con-fusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the middleages, without the medieval Papacy ; and of the me-dieval Papacy the real father is Gregory the Great.In all his predecessors there was much of the un-certainty and indefiniteness of a new dominion...Gregory is the Roman altogether merged in theChristian Bishop. It is a Christian dominion, of whichhe lays the foundations in the Eternal City, not the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

old Rome, associating Christian influence to her an«cient title of sovereignty." (Vol. i., p. 401, 2.)

4. From Gregory I. to Innocent III. is six hundredyears ;—a very fair portion of the world's history, tohave passed in doing good of primary importance to awkole continent, and that the continent of Europe;good, by which all nations and their governors, allstatesmen and legislatures, are the gainers. And,again, should it not occur to Mr. Gladstone that theseservices were rendered to mankind by means of thosevery instruments of power on which he thinks it pro-per to pour contempt as " rusty tools ?" The right towarn and punish powerful men, to excommunicatekings, to preach aloud truth and justice to the inhabi-tants of the earth, to denounce immoral doctrines, tostrike at rebellion in the garb of heresy, were the veryweapons by which Europe was brought into a civilizedcondition ; yet he calls them " rusty tools " which need" refurbishing." Does he wish then that such high ex-pressions of ecclesiastical displeasure, such sharp penal-ties, should be of daily use ? If they are rusty, becausethey have been long without using, then have theyever been rusty. Is a Council a rusty tool, becausenone had been held, till 1870, since the sixteenth cen-tury ? or because there had been but nineteen in 1,900years ? How many times is it in the history of Chris-tianity that the Pope has solemnly drawn and exer-cised his sword upon a king or an emperor ? If an ex-traordinary weapon must be a rusty tool, I supposeGregory VII.'s sword was not keen enough for theGerman Henry; and the seventh Pius too used a rustytool in his excommunication of Napoleon. How could

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Mr. Gladstone ever " fondly think that Rome had dis-used " her weapons, and that they had hung up asantiquities and curiosities in her celestial armoury,—•or, in his own words, as " hideous mummies," p. 46,—when the passage of arms between the great Conquerorand the aged Pope was so close upon his men.ory!Would he like to see a mummy come to life again?That unexpected miracle actually took place in thefirst years of this century. Gregory was considered tohave done an astounding deed in the middle ages,when he brought Henry, the German Emperor, to <lo^penance and shiver in the snow at Canossa; but Na-poleon had his snow-penance too, and that with anactual interposition of Providence in the infliction ofit. I describe it in the words of Alison:—

" * What does the Pope mean/ said Napoleon toEugene, in July, 1807, 'by the threat of excommuni-cating me ? does he think the world has gone back athousand years ? Does he suppose the arms will fallfrom the hands of my soldiers ?' Within two yearsafter these remarkable words were written, the Popedid excommunicate him, in return for the confiscationof his whole dominions, and in less than four yearsmore, the arms did fall from the hands of his soldiers;and the hosts, apparently invincible, which he had col-lected were dispersed and ruined by the blasts of win-ter. ' The weapons of the soldiers/ says Segur, in de-scribing the Russian retreat, ' appeared of an insupport-able weight to their stiffened arms. During their fre-quent falls they fell from their hands, and destitute ofthe power of raising them from the ground, they wereleft in the snow. They did not throw them away:

Digitized by LiOOQIC

famine and cold tore them from their grasp.' * Thesoldiers could no longer hold their weapons,' says Sal-gues, ' they fell from the hands even of the bravest andmost robust. The muskets dropped frdm the frozenarms of those who bore them.' " (Hist. ch. lx., 9th ed.)

Alison adds—" There is something in these marvel-lous coincidences beyond the operations of chance, andwhich even a Protestant historian feels himself boundto mark for the observation of future ages. The worldhas not gone back a thousand years, but that Beingexisted with whom a thousand years are as one day,and one day as a thousand years." As He was withGregory in 1077, so He was with Pius in 1812, and Hewill be with some future Pope again, when the necessityshall come.

5. In saying this, I am far from saying that Popesare never in the wrong, and are never to be resisted, orthat their excommunications always avail. I am notbound to defend the policy or the acts of particularPopes, whether before or after the great revolt fromtheir authority in the 16th century. There is no reasonthat I should contend, and I do not contend, for in-stance, that they at all times have understood our ownpeople, our national character and resources, and ourposition in Europe-; or that they have never sufferedfrom bad counsellors or misinformation. I say this themore freely, because Urban VIII., about the year 1641or 1642, blamed the policy of some Popes of the pre-ceding century in their dealings with our country.*

* " When he was urged to excommunicate the Kings of Franceand Sweden, he made answer,' We may declare them excommuni-cate, as Pius V. declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him

Digitized by LiOOQIC

But, whatever we are bound to allow to Mr. Glad-stone on this head, that does not warrant the passionateinvective against the Holy See and us individually,which he has carried on through sixty-four pages.What we have a manifest right to expect from him islawyer-like exactness and logical consecutiveness in hisimpeachment of us. The heavier that is, the less doesit need the exaggerations of a great orator. If thePope's conduct towards us three centyries ago hasrighteously wiped out the memory of his earlier bene-fits, yet he should have a fair trial. The more intoxi-cating was his solitary greatness, when it was in thezenith, the greater consideration should be shown to-wards him in his present temporal humiliation, whenconcentration of ecclesiastical functions in one mag,does but make him, in the presence of the haters ofCatholicism, what a Roman Emperor contemplated,when he wished all his subjects had but one neck thathe might destroy them by one blow. Surely, in thetrial of so august a criminal, one might have hoped, atleast, to have found gravity and measure in language,and calmness in tone—not a pamphlet written as if onimpulse, in defence of an incidental parenthesis in aprevious publication, and then, after having been mul-tiplied in 22,000 copies, appealing to the lower classesin the shape of a sixpenny tract, the lowness of the

Clement VII. the King of England, Henry VIII. . . but with whatsuccess ? The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it with tears ofblood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V. or ClementVII., but Paul V. who, in the beginning, being many times urged bythe Spaniards to excommunicate James King of England, neverwould consent to it' " (State Paper Office, Italy, 1641-1662). VideMr. Simpson's very able and careful life of Campion, 1867, p. 371.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

price indicating the width of the circulation. SurelyNana Sahib will have more justice done to him by theEnglish people, than has been shown to the Father ofEuropean civilization.

6. I have been referring to the desolate state inwhich the Holy See has been cast during the lastyears, such that the Pope, humanly speaking, is at themercy of his enemies, and morally a prisoner in hispalace. A state of such secular feebleness cannot lastfor ever; sooner or later there will be, in the divinemercy, a change for the better, and the Vicar of Christwill no longer be a mark for insult and indignity. Butone thing, except by an almost miraculous interposi-tion, cannot be; and that is, a return to the universalreligious sentiment, the public opinion, of the medievaltime. The Pope himself calls those centuries "theages of faith/' Such endemic faith may certainly bedecreed for some future time; but, as far as we havethe means of judging at present, centuries must runout first. Even in the fourth century the ecclesiasticalprivileges, claimed on the one hand, granted on theother, came into effect more or less under two condi-tions, that they were recognized by public law, andthat they had the consent of the Christian populations.Is there any chance whatever, except by miracleswhich were not granted then, that the public law andthe inhabitants of Europe will allow the Pope thatexercise of his rights, which they allowed him as amatter of course in the nth and 12th centuries? Ifthe whole world will at once answer No, it is surely in-opportune to taunt us with the acts of medieval Popesin the case of certain princes and nobles, when the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

sentiment of Europe was radically Papal. How doesthe past bear upon the present in this matter. YetMr. Gladstone is in earnest alarm, earnest with theearnestness which distinguishes him as a statesman, atthe harm which society may receive from the Pope, ata time when the Pope can do nothing. He grants (p.46) that " the fears are visionary . . . that either for-eign foe or domestic treason can, at the bidding of theCourt of Rome, disturb these peaceful shores;" heallows that " in the middle ages the Popes contended,not by direct action of fleets and armies," but mainly44 by interdicts," p. 35. Yet, because men then believedin interdicts, though now they don't, therefore thecivil Power is to be roused against the Pope. But hisanimus is bad ; his animus ! what can animus do with-out matter to work upon? Mere animusy like bigwords, breaks no bones.

As if to answer Mr. Gladstone by anticipation, andto allay his fears, the Pope made a declaration threeyears ago on the subject, which, strange to say, Mr.Gladstone quotes without perceiving that it tellsagainst the very argument, which he brings it to corro-borate ;—that is, except as the Pope's animus goes.Doubtless he would wish to have the place in the poli-tical world which his predecessors had, because it wasgiven to him by Providence, and is conducive to thehighest interests of mankind ; but he distinctly tellsus that he has not got it, and cannot have it, till a timecomes, of the prospect of which we are as good judgesas he can be, and which we say cannot come, at leastfor centuries. He speaks of what is his highest poli-tical power, that of interposing in the quarrel between

Digitized by LiOOQIC

a prince and his subjects, and of declaring upon appealmade to him from them, that the Prince had or hadnot forfeited their allegiance. This power, most rarelyexercised, and on very extraordinary occasions, andwithout any aid of infallibility in the exercise of it,any more than the civil power possesses that aid, it isnot necessary for any Catholic to believe ; and I sup-pose, comparatively speaking, few Catholics do believeit; to be honest, I must say, I do; that is, under theconditions which the Pope himself lays down in thedeclaration to which I have referred, his answer to theaddress of the Academia. He speaks of his right " todepose sovereigns, and release the people from theobligation of loyalty, a right which had undoubtedlysometimes been exercised in crucial circumstances,"and. he says, " This right (dirittd) in those ages of faith,—(which discerned in the Pope, what he is, that is tosay, the Supreme Judge of Christianity, and recog-nized the advantages of his tribunal in the great con-tests of peoples and sovereigns)—was freely extended,—(aided indeed as a matter of duty by the public law(ilirittd) and by the common consent of peoples)—to themost important (1 piu gravi) interests of states andtheir rulers." (Guardian, Nov. 11, 1874.)

Now let us observe how the Pope restrains theexercise of this right. He calls it his right—that is, inthe sense in which right in one party is correlative withduty in the other, so that, when the duty is not ob-served, the right cannot be brought into exercise; andthis is precisely what he goes on to intimate; for helays down the conditions of that exercise. First it canonly be exercised in rare and critical circumstances

Digitized by LiOOQIC

48 The Papal Church.

{supreme circonstanze, i pih gravi interessi). Next herefers to his being the supreme judge of Christianity,and to his decision as coming from a tribunal; his pre-rogative then is not a mere arbitrary power, but mustbe exercised by a process of law and a formal examina-tion of the case, and in the presence and the hearingof the two parties interested in it. Also in this limi-tation is implied that the Pope's definitive sentenceinvolves an appeal to the supreme standard of right andwrong, the moral law, as its basis and rule, and mustcontain the definite reasons on which it decides infavour of the one party or the other. Thirdly, the ex-ercise of this right is limited to the ages of faith ; ageswhich, on the one hand, inscribed it among the provisionsof the jus publicum, and on the other so fully recog-nized the benefits it conferred, as to be able to enforceit by the common consent of the peoples. These lastwords should be dwelt on: it is no consent which ismerely local, as of one country, of Ireland or of Bel-gium, if that were probable ; but a united consent ofvarious nations, of Europe, for instance, as a common-wealth, of which the Pope was the head. Thirty yearsago we heard much of the Pope being made the headof an Italian confederation: no word came from Eng-land against such an arrangement. It was possible,because the members of it were all of one reli-gion ; and in like manner a European commonwealthwould be reasonable, if Europe were of one religion.Lastly, the Pope declares with indignation that a Popeis not infallible in the exercise of this right; such anotion is an invention of the enemy; he calls it" malicious."

Digitized by LiOOQIC

But one attribute the Church has, and the Pope ashead of the Church, whether he be in high estate, asthis world goes, or not, whether he has temporal pos-sessions or not, whether he is in honour or dishonour,whether he is at home or driven about, whether thosespecial claims of which I have spoken are allowed ornot,—and that is Sovereignty. As God has sovereignty,though He may be disobeyed or disowned, so has HisVicar upon earth ; and further than this, since Catholicpopulations are found everywhere, he ever will be infact lord of a vast empire ; as large in numbers, as farspreading as the British ; and all his acts are sure to besuch as are in keeping with the position of one who isthus supremely exalted.

I beg not to be interrupted here, as many a readerwill interrupt me in his thoughts ; for I am using thesewords, not at random, but as the commencement of along explanation, and, in a certain sense, limitation, ofwhat I have hitherto been saying concerningthe Church'sand the Pope's power. To this task the remainingpages, which I have to address to your Grace, will bedirected ; and I trust that it will turn out, when I cometo the end of them, that, by first stating fully what thePope's Claims are, I shall be able most clearly to showwhat he does not claim.

Now the key-note of Mr. Gladstone's Pamphlet isthis:—that, since the Pope claims infallibility in faith

Digitized by LiOOQIC

and morals, and since there are no " departments andfunctions of human life which do not and cannot fallwithin the domain of morals," p. 36, and since he claimsalso u the domain of all that concerns the governmentand discipline of the Church," and moreover, ** claimsthe power of determining the limits of those domains,"and " does not sever them, by any acknowledged orintelligible line from the domains of civil duty and alle-giance," p. 45, therefore Catholics are moral and men-tal slaves, and "every convert and member of thePope's Church places his loyalty and civil duty at themercy of another," p. 45.

I admit Mr. Gladstone's premisses, but I reject hisconclusion ; and now I am going to show why I rejectit.

In doing this, I shall, with him, put aside for thepresent the Pope's prerogative of infallibility in gene-ral enunciations, whether of faith or morals, and con-fine myself to the consideration of his authority (inrespect to which he is not infallible) in matters of dailyconduct, and of our duty of obedience to him." There is something wider still," he says, (than theclaim of infallibility), " and that is the claim to anAbsolute and entire Obedience," p. 37. " Little doesit matter to me, whether my Superior claims infalli-bility, so long as he is entitled to demand and exactconformity," p. 39. He speaks of a third provincebeing opened, " not indeed to the abstract assertionof Infallibility, but to the far more practical and de-cisive demand of Absolute Obedience," p. 41, " theAbsolute Obedience, at the peril of salvation, of everymember of his communion," p. 42.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Now, I proceed to examine this large, direct, reli-gious sovereignty of the Pope, both in its relation tohis subjects, and to the Civil Power; but first, I begto be allowed to say just one word on the principle ofobedience itself, that is, by way of inquiry, whether itis or is not now a religious duty.

Is there then such a duty at all as obedience toecclesiastical authority now? or is it one of thoseobsolete ideas, which are swept away, as unsightlycobwebs, by the New Civilization ? Scripture says," Remember them which have the rule over you, whohave spoken unto you the word of God, whose faithfollow/' And, " Obey them that have the rule overyou, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for yoursouls, as they that must give account, that they maydo it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofit-able for you." The margin in the Protestant Versionreads, " those who are your guides;" and the wordmay also be translated " leaders." Well, as rulers, orguides and leaders, whichever word be right, they areto be obeyed. Now Mr. Gladstone dislikes our way offulfilling this precept, whether as regards our choice ofruler and leader, or our "Absolute Obedience" tohim ; but he does not give us his own. Is there anyliberalistic reading of the Scripture passage ? Or arethe words only for the benefit of the poor and igno-rant, not for the Schola (as it may be called) of politi-cal and periodical writers, not for individual membersof Parliament, not for statesmen and Cabinet ministers,and people of Progress? Which party then is themore " Scriptural," those who recognize and carry outin their conduct texts like these, or those who don't ?

Digitized by LiOOQIC

May not we Catholics claim some mercy from Mr.Gladstone, though we be faulty in the object and themanner of our obedience, since in a lawless day anobject and a manner of obedience we have ? Can webe blamed, if, arguing from those texts which say thatecclesiastical authority comes from above, we obey itin that one form in which alone we find it on earth,in that only person who claims it of us, among allthe notabilities of this nineteenth century into whichwc have been born ? • The" Pope has no rival in hisclaim upon us; nor is it our doing that his claim hasbeen made and allowed for centuries upon centuries,and that it was he who made the Vatican decrees, andnot they him. If we give him up, to whom shall wego ? Can we dress up any civil functionary in the vest-ments of divine authority? Can I, for instance, fol-low the faith, can I put my soul into the hands, of ourgracious Sovereign? or of the Archbishop of Canter-bury? or of the Bishop of Lincoln, albeit he is notbroad and low, but high ? Catholics have '* done whatthey could/'—ail that any one could : and it should beMr. Gladstone's business, before telling us that we areslaves, because we obey the Pope, first of all to tearaway those texts from the Bible.

With this preliminary remark, I proceed to considerwhether the Pope's authority is either a slavery to hissubjects, or a menace to the Civil Power; and first, asto his power over his flock.

I. Mr. Gladstone says that " the Pontiff declares tobelong to him the supreme direction of Catholics in re-spect to all duty," p. 37. Supreme direction ; true,but " supreme" is not "minute," nor does " direc-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

tion " mean supervision or " management/' Take theparallel of human law; the Law is supreme, and theLaw directs our conduct under the manifold circum-stances in which we have to act, and must be abso-lutely obeyed ; but who therefore says that the Lawhas the "supreme direction" of us? The State, aswell as the Church, has the power at its will of im-posing laws upon us, laws bearing on our moral duties,our daily conduct, affecting our actions in various ways,and circumscribing our liberties; yet no one wouldsay that the Law, after all, with all its power in theabstract and its executive vigour in fact, interfereseither with our comfort or our conscience. There arenumberless laws about property, landed and personal,titles, tenures, trusts, wills, covenants, contracts, part-nerships, money transactions, life-insurances, taxes,trade, navigation, education, sanitary measures, tres-passes, nuisances, all in addition to the criminal law.Law, to apply Mr. Gladstone's words, " is the shadowthat cleaves to us, go where we will." Moreover, itvaries year after year, and refuses to give any pledgeof fixedness or finality. Nor can any one tell what re-straint is to come next, perhaps painful personally tohimself. Nor are its enactments easy of interpretation ;for actual cases, with the speeches and opinions ofcounsel, and the decisions of judges, must prepare theraw material, as it proceeds from the legislature, beforeit can be rightly understood ; so that " the gloriousuncertainty of the Law " has become a proverb. And,after all, no one is sure of escaping its penalties with-out the assistance of lawyers, and that in such privateand personal matters that the lawyers are, as by an

Digitized by LiOOQIC

imperative duty, bound to a secrecy which even courtsof justice respect. And then, besides the Statute Law,there is the common and traditional; and, below this,usage. Is not all this enough to try the temper of afree-born Englishman, and to make him cry out withMr. Gladstone, " Three-fourths of my life are handedover to the Law; I care not to ask if there be dregsor tatters of human life, such as can escape from thedescription and boundary of Parliamentary tyranny? "Yet, though we may dislike it, though we may at timessuffer from it ever so much, who does not see that thethraldom and irksomeness are nothing compared withthe great blessings which the Constitution and Legis-lature secure to us ?

Such is the jurisdiction which the Law exercisesover us. What rule does the Pope claim which can becompared to its strong and its long arm ? What inter-ference with our liberty of judging and acting in ourdaily work, in our course of life, comes to us from him ?Really, at first sight, I have not known where to lookfor instances of his actual interposition in our privateaffairs, for it is our routine of personal duties aboutwhich I am now speaking. Let us see how we standin this matter.

We are guided in our ordinary duties by the booksof moral theology, which are drawn up by theologiansof authority and experience, as an instruction for ourConfessors. These books are based on the three Chris-tian foundations of Faith, Hope, and Charity, on theTen Commandments, and on the six Precepts of theChurch, which relate to thp observance of Sunday, offast days, of confession and communion, and, in one

Digitized by LiOOQIC

shape or other, to paying tithes. A great number ofpossible cases are noted under these heads, and in diffi-cult questions a variety of opinions are given, withplain directions, when it is that private Catholics are atliberty to choose for themselves whatever answer theylike best, and when they are bound to follow some oneof them iu particular. Reducible as these directions indetail are to the few and simple heads which I havementioned, they are little more than reflexions andmemoranda of our moral sense, unlike the positiveenactments of the Legislature ; and, on the whole, pre-sent to us no difficulty—though now and then somecritical question may arise, and some answer may begiven (just as by the private conscience) which it isdifficult to us or painful to accept. And again, casesmay occur now and then, when our private judgmentdiffers from what is set down in theological works, buteven then it does not follow at once that our privatejudgment must give way, for those books are no utter-ance of Papal authority.

And this is the point to which I am coming. Solittle does the Pope come into this whole system ofmoral theology by which (as by our conscience) ourlives are regulated, that the weight of his hand uponus, as private men, is absolutely unappreciable. I havehad a difficulty where to find a measure or gauge ofhis interposition. At length I have looked throughBusenbaum's " Medulla," to ascertain what light sucha book would throw upon the question. It is a bookof casuistry for the use of Confessors, running to 700pages, and is a large repository of answers made byvarious theologians on points of conscience, and gen-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

erally of duty. It was first published in 1645—my ownedition is of 1844—and in the latter are marked thosepropositions, bearing on subjects treated in it, whichhave been condemned by Popes in the intermediate200 years. On turning over the pages I find they arein all between 50 and 60. This list includes matterssacramental, ritual, ecclesiastical, monastic, and disci-plinarian, as well as moral,—relating to the duties ofecclesiastics and regulars, of parish priests, and of pro-fessional men, as well as of private Catholics. Andthe condemnations relate for the most part to mereoccasional details of duty, and are in reprobation ofthe lax or wild notions of speculative casuists, so thatthey are rather restraints upon theologians than uponlaymen. For instance, the following are some of thepropositions condemned:—"The ecclesiastic, who ona certain day is hindered from saying Matins andLauds, is not bound to say, if he can, the remaininghours; " " Where there is good cause, it is lawful toswear without the purpose of swearing, whether thematter is of light or grave moment;" " Domesticsmay steal from their masters, in compensation for theirservice, which they think greater than their wages ;"" It is lawful for a public man to kill an opponent,who tries to fasten a calumny upon him, if he can-not otherwise escape the ignominy." I have takenthese instances at random; It must be granted, Ithink, that in the long course of 200 years the amountof the Pope's authoritative enunciations has not beensuch as to press heavily on the back of the privateCatholic. He leaves us surely far more than that" one fourth of the department of conduct," which Mr.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Gladstone allows us. Indeed, if my account andspecimens of his sway over us in morals be correct, Ido not see what he takes away at all from our privateconsciences.

"Mr. Gladstone says that the Pope virtually claimsto himself the wide domain of conduct, and thereforethat we are his.slaves:—let us see if another illustra^tion or parallel will not show this to be a non-sequitur. Suppose a man, who is in the midst of vari-ous and important lines of business, has a medicaladviser, in whom he has full confidence, as knowingwell his constitution. This adviser keeps a careful andanxious eye upon him ; and, as an honest man, says tohim, " You must not go off on a journey to-day," or"you must take some days' rest," or "you must at-tend to your diet." Now, this is not a fair parallel tothe Pope's hold upon us; for he does not speak to uspersonally but to all, and in speaking definitely onethical subjects, what he propounds must relate tothings good and bad in themselves, not to things acci-dental, changeable, and of mere expedience; so thatthe argument which I am drawing from the case of amedical adviser is h fortiori in its character. However,I say that, though a medical man exercises a " su-preme direction " of those who put themselves underhim, yet we do not therefore say, even of him, that heinterferes with our daily conduct, and that we are hisslaves. He certainly does thwart many of our wishesand purposes; in a true sense we are at his mercy ; hemay interfere any day, suddenly; he will not, he can-not, draw any line between his action and our action.The same journey, the same press of business, the same

Digitized by LiOOQIC

indulgence at table, which he passes over one year, hesternly forbids the next. If Mr. Gladstone's argumentis good, he has a finger in all the commercial transac-tions of the great merchant or financier who haschosen him. But surely there is a simple fallacy here.Mr. Gladstone asks us whether our political and civillife is not at the Pope's mercy ; every act, he says, ofat least three-quarters of the day, is under his control.No, not every y but any, and this is all the difference—that is, we have no guarantee given us that there willnever be a case, when the Pope's general utterancesmay come to have a bearing upon some personal actof ours. In the same way we are all of us in this ageunder the control of public opinion and the publicprints ; nay, much more intimately so. Journalism canbe and is very personal; and, when it is in the right,more powerful just now than any Pope; yet we do notgo into fits, as if we were slaves, because we are undera surveillance much more like tyranny than any sway,so indirect, so practically limited, so gentle, as his is.But it seems the cardinal point of our slavery lies,not simply in the domain of morals, but in the Pope'sgeneral authority over us in all things whatsoever. Thiscount in his indictment Mr. Gladstone founds on apassage in the third chapter of the Pastor ceternus, inwhich the Pope, speaking of the Pontifical jurisdiction,says:—" Towards it (erga quam) pastors and peopleof whatsoever rite or dignity, each and all, are boundby the duty of hierarchical subordination and trueobedience, not only in matters which pertain to faithand morals, but also in those which pertain to the dis-cipline and the regimen of the Church spread through-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

out the world; so that, unity with the Roman Pontiff(both of communion and of profession of the samefaith) being preserved, the Church of Christ may beone flock under one supreme Shepherd. This is thedoctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can de-viate without loss of faith and salvation."

On Mr. Gladstone's use of this passage I observefirst, that he leaves out a portion of it which has muchto do with the due understanding of it (ita ut custodita,etc.) Next, he speaks of " absolute obedience " so often,that any reader, who had not the passage before him,would think that the word " absolute " was the Pope'sword, not his. Thirdly, three times (at pp. 38,41, and42) does he make the Pope say that no one can disobeyhim without .risking his salvation, whereas what thePope does say is, that no one can disbelieve the duty ofobedience and unity without such risk. And fourthly,in order to carry out this false sense, or rather to hin-der its being evidently impossible, he mistranslates, p.38, " doctrina " (Haec est doctrina) by the word " rule."

But his chief attack is directed to the words " dis-ciplina " and " regimen." " Thus," he "says, " areswept into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts,whole systems of government, prevailing, though indifferent degrees, in every country of the world," p. 41.That is, disciplina and regimen are words of such lax,vague, indeterminate meaning, that under them anymatters can be slipped in which may be required forthe Pope's purpose in this or that country, such as, totake Mr. Gladstone's instances, blasphemy, poor-relief,incorporation and mortmain; as if no definitions werecontained in our theological and ecclesiastical works pf

Digitized by LiOOQIC

'A

words in such common use, and as if in consequencethe Pope was at liberty to give them any sense of hisown. As to discipline, Fr. Perrone says " Disciplinecomprises the exterior worship of God, the liturgy,sacred rites, psalmody, the administration of the sacra-ments, the canonical form of sacred elections and theinstitution of ministers, vows, feast-days, and the like ;"all of them (observe) matters internal to the Church,and without any relation to the Civil Power and civilaffairs. Perrone adds, " Ecclesiastical discipline is apractical and external rule, prescribed by the Church,in order to retain the faithful in their faith, and themore easily lead them on to eternal happiness," PrceLTheoL t. 2, p. 381, 2d ed., 1841. Thus discipline is inno sense a political instrument,except as* the professionof our faith may accidentally become political. In thesame sense Zallinger: "The Roman Pontiff has bydivine right the power of passing universal laws per-taining to the discipline of the Church; for instance, todivine worship, sacred rites, the ordination and mannerof life of the clergy, the order of the ecclesiastical re-gimen, and the right administration of the temporalpossessions of the Church."—Jur. Eccles., lib. i., t. 2,§121.

So too the word " regimen " has a definite mean-ing, relating to a matter strictly internal to the Church;it means government, or the mode or form of govern-ment, or the course of government, and, as, in the in-tercourse of nation with nation, *the nature of a na-tion's government, whether monarchical or republican,does not come into question, so the constitution of theChurch simply belongs to its nature, not to its exter-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

nal action. There are indeed aspects of the Churchwhich involve relations toward secular powers and tonations, as, for instance, its missionary office; butregimen has relation to one of its internal character-istics, viz., its form of government, whether we call ita pure monarchy or with others a monarchy temperedby aristocracy. Thus Tournely says, " Three kindsof regimen or government are set down by philoso-phers, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy," Tfteo/.,t. 2, p. ioo. Bellarmine says the same, Rom. Pont. i.2 ; and Perrone takes it for granted, ibid. pp. 70, 71.

Now, why does the Pope speak at this time ofregimen and discipline ? He tells us, in that portionof the sentence, which, thinking it of no account, Mr.Gladstone has omitted. The Pope tells us that allCatholics should recollect their duty of obedience tohim, not only in faith and morals, but in such mattersof regimen and discipline as belong to the universalChurch, " so that unity with the Roman Pontiff, bothof communion and of profession of the same faith be-ing preserved, the Church of Christ may be one flockunder one supreme Shepherd." I consider this pas-sage to be especially aimed at Nationalism: " Recol-lect," the Pope seems to say, " the Church is one' andthat, not only in faith and morals, for schismatics mayprofess as much as this, but one, wherever it is, allover the world ; and not only one, but one and thesame, bound together by its one regimen and disci-pline, and by the satire regimen and discipline,—thesame rites, the same sacraments, the same usages, andthe same one Pastor; and in these bad times it isnecessary for all Catholics to recollect, that this doc-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

trine of the Church's individuality and, as it were, per-sonality, is not a mere received opinion or understand-ing, which may be entertained or not, as we please, butis a fundamental, necessary truth.'' This being, speakring under correction, the drift of the passage, I observethat the words " spread throughout the world" or" universal" are so far from turning " discipline andregimen " into what Mr. Gladstone calls a " net," thatthey contract the range of both of them, not including,as he would have it, " marriage " here, " blasphemy "there, and " poor-relief" in a third country, but notingand specifying that one and the same structure oflaws, rites, rules of government, independency, every-where, of which the Pope himself is the centre andlife. And surely this is what every one of us will saywith the Pope, who is not an Erastian, and who be-lieves that the Gospel is no mere philosophy thrownupon the world at large, no mere quality of mind andthought, no mere beautiful and deep sentiment or sub-jective opinion, but a substantive message from above,guarded and preserved in a visible polity.

2. And now I am naturally led on to speak of thePope's supreme authority, such as I have described it,in its bearing towards the Civil Power all over theworld,—various, as the Church is invariable,—a powerwhich as truly comes from God, as his own does.

That collisions can take place between the HolySee and national governments the history of fifteenhundred years teaches us; also, that on both sidesthere may occur grievous mistakes. But my questionall along lies, not with " quicquid delirant reges," butwith what, under the circumstance of such a collision,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

is the duty of those who are both children of the Popeand subjects of the Civil Power. As to the duty ofthe Civil Power, I have already intimated in my firstsection, that it should treat the Holy See as an inde-pendent sovereign, and if this rule had been observed,the difficulty to Catholics in a country not Catholic,would be most materially lightened. Great Britainrecognizes and is recognized by the United States;the two powers have ministers at each other'scourts; here is one standing prevention of seri-ous quarrels. Misunderstandings between the twoco-ordinate powers may arise; but there followexplanations, removals of the causes of offence,acts of restitution. In actual collisions, there are con-ferences, compromises, arbitrations. Now the pointto observe here is, that in such cases neither partygives up its abstract rights, but neither party practi-cally insists on them. And each party thinks itself inthe right in the particular case, protests against anyother view, but still concedes. Neither party says, " Iwill not make it up with you, till you draw an intelli-gible line between your domain and mine." I supposein the Geneva arbitration, though we gave way, westill thought that, in our conduct in the American civilwar, we had acted within our rights. I say all this inanswer to Mr. Gladstone's challenge to us to draw theline between the Pope's domain and the State's do-main in civil or political questions. Many a privateAmerican, I suppose, lived in London and Liverpool,all through the correspondence between our ForeignOffice and the government of the United States, andMr. Gladstone never addressed any expostulation to

Digitized by LiOOQIC

them, or told them they had lost their moral freedombecause they took part with their own government.The French, when their late war began, did sweep theirGerman sojourners out of France, (the number, as Irecollect, was very great,) but they were not consideredto'have done themselves much credit by such an act.When we went to war with Russia, the English in St.Petersburg made an address, I think to the Emperor,asking for his protection, and he gave it;—I don't sup-pose they pledged themselves to the Russian view ofthe war, nor would he have called them slaves insteadof patriots, if they had refused to do so. SupposeEngland were to send her Ironclads to support Italyagainst the Pope and his allies, English Catholicswould be very indignant, they would take part withthe Pope before the war began, they would use all con-stitutional means to hinder it; but who believes that,when they were once in the war, their action would beanything else than prayers and exertions for a termina-tion of it ? What reason is there for saying that theywould commit themselves to any step of a treasonablenature, any more than loyal Germans, had they beenallowed to remain in France? Yet, because thoseGermans would not relinquish their allegiance to theircountry, Mr. Gladstone, were he consistent, would atonce send them adrift.

Of course it will be said tljat in these cases, thereis no double allegiance, and again that the Germangovernment did not call upon them, as the Pope mightcall upon English Catholics, nay command them, totake a side; but my argument at least shows this, thattill there comes to us a special, direct command from

Digitized by LiOOQIC

the Pope to oppose our country, we need not be saidto have " placed our loyalty and civil duty at the mercyof another," p. 45. It is stran'ge that a great states-man, versed in the new and true philosophy of com-promise, instead of taking a practical view of the actualsituation, should proceed against us, like a Professor inthe schools, with the "parade" of his "relentless"(and may I add " rusty " ?) " logic," p. 23.

I say, //// the Pope told us to exert ourselves forhis cause in a quarrel with this country, as in the timeof the Armada, Ave need not attend to an abstract andhypothetical difficulty :—then and not till then. I add,as before, that if the Holy See were frankly recognizedby England, as other Sovereign Powers are, directquarrels between the two powers would in this age ofthe world be rare indeed ; and still rarer, their becom-ing so energetic and urgent as to descend into theheart of the community, and to disturb the consciencesand the family unity of private Catholics.

But now, lastly, let us suppose one of these extra-ordinary cases of direct and open hostility between thetwo powers actually to occur;—here first, we mustbring before us the state of the case. Of course, wemust recollect, on the one hand, that Catholics are notonly bound to allegiance to the British Crown, buthave special privileges as citizens, can meet together,speak and pass resolutions, can vote for members ofParliament, and sit in Parliament, and can hold office,all which are denied to foreigners sojourning amongus ; while on the other hand there is the authority ofthe Pope, which, though not " absolute "even in reli-gious matters, as Mr. Gladstone would have it to be,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

has a call, a supreme call on our obedience. Certainlyin the event of such a collision of jurisdictions, thereare cases in which we should obey the Pope and dis-obey the State. Suppose, for instance, an Act waspassed in Parliament, bidding Catholics to attend Pro-testant service every week, and the Pope distinctlytold us not to do so, for it was to violate our duty toour faith :—I should obey the Pope and not the Law.It will be said by Mr. Gladstone, that such a case isimpossible. I know it is; but why ask me for what Ishould do in extreme and utterly improbable casessuch as this, if my answer cannot help bearing thecharacter of an axiom ? It is not my fault that I mustdeal in truisms. The circumferences of State jurisdic-tion and of Papal are for the most part quite apartfrom each other; there are just some few degrees outof the 360 in which they intersect, and Mr. Gladstone,instead of letting these cases of intersection alone, tillthey occur actually, asks me what I should do, if Ifound myself placed in the space intersected. If Imust answer then, I should say distinctly that did theS&te tell me in a question of worship to do what thePope told me not to do, I should obey the Pope, andshould think it no sin, if I used all the power and theinfluence I possessed as a citizen to prevent such aBill passing the Legislature, and to effect its repealif it did.

But now, on the other hand, could the case everoccur, in which I should act with the Civil Power, andnot with the Pope? Now, here again, when I beginto imagine instances, Catholics will cry out (as Mr.Gladstone in the case I supposed, cried out in the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Divided Allegiance. 67

interest of the other side), that instances never canoccur. I know they cannot; I know the Pope nevercan do what I am going to suppose ; but then, since itcannot possibly happen in fact, there is no harm injust saying what I should (hypothetically) do, if it didhappen. I say then in certain (impossible) cases Ishould side, not with the Pope, but with the CivilPower. For instance, I believe members of Parliament,or of the Privy Council, take an oath that they wouldnot acknowledge the right of succession of a Prince ofWales, if he became a Catholic. I should not considerthe Pope could release me from that oath had I boundmyself by it. Of course, I might exert myself to theutmost to get the act repealed which bound me ; again,if I could not, I might retire from Parliament or office,and so rid myself of the engagement I had made; butI should be clear that, though the Pope bade all Catho-lics to stand firm in one phalanx for the Catholic Suc-cession, still, while I remained in my office, or in myplace in Parliament, I could not do as he bade me.

Again, were I actually a soldier or sailor in herMajesty's service, and sent to take part in a war whichI could not in my conscience see to be unjust, andshould the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers andsailors to retire from the service, here again, taking theadvice of others, as best I could, I should not obeyhim.

What is the use of forming impossible cases ? Onecan find plenty of them in books of casuistry, with theanswers attached in respect to them. In an actualcase, a Catholic would, of course, not act simply onhis own judgment; at the same time, there are suppos-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

68 Divided Al!c°;ia?ice<

o

able cases in which he would be obliged to go by itsolely—viz., when his conscience could not be reconciledto any of the courses of action proposed to him byothers.

In support of what I have been saying, I refer toone or two weighty authorities:—

Cardinal Turrecremata says:—" Although it clearlyfollows from the circumstance that the Pope can err attimes, and command things which must not be done,that we are not to be simply obedient to him in allthings, that does not show that he must not be obeyedby all when his commands are good. To know in whatcases he is to be obeyed and in what not . . it is saidin the Acts of the Apostles, l One ought to obey Godrather than man ;' therefore, were the Pope to com-mand anything against Holy Scripture, or the articlesof faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the com-mands of the natural or divine law, he ought twt to beobeyed, but in such commands to be passed over(despiciendus)," Summ. de Eccl.y pp. 47, 8.

JBellarmine, speaking of resisting the Pope, says :—" In order to resist and defend oneself no authority isrequired. . . Therefore, as it is lawful to resist thePope, if he assaulted a man's person, so it is lawful toresist him if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state(turbanti rempublicam), and much more if he strove todestroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him,by not doing what he commands, and hindering theexecution of his will," de Rom. Pont.> ii. 29.

Archbishop Kenrick says:—" His power was givenfor edification, not for destruction. If he uses it fromthe love of domination (quod absit) scarcely %vill he

Digitized by LiOOQIC

meet tvith obedient populations"—TheoL Moral\ t. i., p.158.

When, then, Mr. Gladstone asks Catholics how theycan obey the Queen and yet obey the Pope, since itmay happen that the commands of the two authoritiesmay clash, I answer, that it is my rule, both to obeythe one and to obey the other, but that there is no rulein this world without exceptions, and if either thePope or the Queen demanded of me an " AbsoluteObedience/' he or she would be transgressing the lawsof human nature and human society. -I give an abso-lute obedience to neither. Further, if ever this doubleallegiance pulled me in contrary ways, which in thisage of the world I think it never will, then I shoulddecide according to the particular case, which is be-yond all rule, ^and must be decided on its own merits.I should look to see what theologians could do forme, what the Bishops and clergy around me, what myconfessor; what friends whom I revered: and if, afterall, I could not take their view of the matter, then Imust rule myself by my own judgment and rtiy ownconscience. But all this is hypothetical and unreal.

Here, of course, it will be objected to me, that Iam, after all, having recourse to the Protestant doc-trine of Private Judgment; not so ; it is tlie Protestantdoctrine that Private Judgment is our ordinary guidein religious matters, but I use it, in the case in ques-tion, in very extraordinary and rare, nay, impossibleemergencies. Do not the highest Tories thus defendthe substitution of William for James II.? It is agreat mistake to suppose our state in the CatholicChurch is so entirely subjected to rule and system, that

Digitized by LiOOQIC

70 Divided Allegiance.

we are never thrown upon what is called by divines" the Providence of God." The teaching and assist-ance of the Church does not supply all conceivableneeds, but those which are ordinary; thus, for instance,the sacraments are necessary for dying in the grace ofGod and hope of heaven, yet, when they cannot be got,acts of hope, faith, and contrition, with the desire forthose aids which the dying man has not, will conveyin substance what those aids ordinarily convey. Andso a Catechumen, not yet baptised, may be saved byhis purpose and preparation to receive the rite. Andso, again, though " Out of the Church there is no sal-vation," this does not hold in the case of good menwho are in invincible ignorance. And so it is also inthe case of our ordinations; Chillingworth and Mac-aulay say that it is morally impossible that we shouldhave kept up for 1,800 years an Apostolical successionof ministers without some separation of the chain ; andwe in answer say that, however true this may behumanly speaking, there has been a special Providenceover the Church to secure it. Once more, how elsecould private Catholics save their souls when there wasa Pope and Anti-popes, each severally claiming theirallegiance ?

Digitized by LiOOQIC

§ 5- Conscience.

It seems, then, that there are extreme cases inwhich Conscience may come into collision with theword of a Pope, and is to be followed in spite of thatword. Now I wish to place this proposition on abroader basis, acknowledged by all Catholics, and, inorder to do this satisfactorily, as I began with the pro-phecies of Scripture and the primitive Church, when Ispoke of the Pope's prerogatives, so now I must beginwith the Creator and His creature, when I would drawout the prerogatives and the supreme authority ofConscience.

I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certaincharacter, which, expressed in human language, we call-ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wis.dom, sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal char-acteristics in His Nature, the very Law of His beincr,identical with Himself; and next, when He becameCreator, He implanted this Law, which is Himself, inthe intelligence of all His rational creatures. The Di-vine Law, then, is the rule of ethical truth, the standardof right and wrong, a sovereign, irreversible, absoluteauthority in the presence of men and Angels. " Theeternal law," says St. Augustine, " is the Divine Reasonor Will of God, commanding the observance, forbid-ding the disturbance, of the natural order of things."" The natural law," says St. Thomas, " is an impressionof the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal

Digitized by LiOOQIC

72 Conscience?

law in the rational -creature/* (Gousset, TheoL Moral.t. I, pp. 24, etc.) This law, as apprehended in theminds of individual men, is called " conscience ;" and,though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intel-lectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected asto lose its character of being the Divine Law, but stillhas, as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience." The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, " is the su-preme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words,acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the lawof God ; and this law is the rule of our conduct bymeans of our conscience. Hence it is never lawful togo against our conscience; as the fourth Lateran coun-cil says, ' Quidquid fit tontra conscientiam, aedificat adgehennam.' "

This, I know, is very different from the view ordi-narily taken of it, both by the science and literature,and by the public opinion, of this day. It is foundedon the doctrine that conscience is the voice of God,whereas it is fashionable on all hands now to considerit in one way or another a creation of man. Of course,there are great and broad exceptions to this statement.It is not true of many or most religious bodies of men ;especially not of their teachers and ministers. WhenAnglicans, Wesleyans, the various Presbyterian sects inScotland, and other denominations among us, speak ofconscience, they mean what we mean, the voice of Godin the nature and heart of man, as distinct from thevoice of Revelation. They speak of a principle plantedwithin us, before we have had any training, thoughsuch training and experience is necessary for itsstrength, growth, and due formation. They consider it

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conscience. 73

a constituent element of the mind, as our perception ofother ideas may be, as our powers of reasoning, as oursense of order and the beautiful, and our other intel-lectual endowments. They consider it, as Catholicsconsider it, to be the internal witness of both the ex-istence and the law of God. They think it holds ofGod, and not of man, as an Angel walking on the earthwould be no citizen or dependent of the Civil Power.They would not allow, any more than we do, that itcould be resolved into any combination of principles inour nature, more elementary than itself; nay, thoughit may be called, and is, a law of the mind, they wouldnot grant that it was nothing more; I mean, that it wasnot a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility,of duty, of a threat and a promise, with a vividnesswhich discriminated it from all other constituents ofour nature.

This, at least, is how I read the doctrine of Protes-tants as well as of Catholics. The rule and measure ofduty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happinessof the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fit-ness, order, and the pulchrunu Conscience is not along-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistentwith oneself, but it is a messenger from .Him, who,in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, andteaches and rules us by His representatives. Con-science is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, ^prophet in itsinformations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priestin its blessings and anathemas, and, even though theeternal priesthood throughout the Church could ceaseto be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and. would have a sway.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

74 * Conscience.

Words such as these are idle empty verbiage to thegreat world of philosophy now. All through my daythere has been a resolute warfare, I had almost saidconspiracy, against the rights of conscience, as I havedescribed it. Literature and science have been em-bodied in great institutions in order to put it down.Noble buildings have been reared as fortresses againstthat spiritual, invisible influence which is too subtlefor science and too profound for literature. Chairs inUniversities have been made the seats of an an-tagonist tradition. Public writers, day after day, haveindoctrinated the minds of innumerable readers withtheories subversive of its claims. As in Roman times,and in the middle age, its supremacy was assailed bythe arm of physical force, so now the intellect is put inoperation to sap the foundations of a power which thesword could not destroy. We are told that conscienceis but a twist in primitive and untutored man; thatits dictate is an imagination; that the very notion ofguiltiness, which that dictate enforces, is simply irra-tional, for how can there possibly be freedom of will,how can there be consequent responsibility, in thatinfinite eternal network of cause and effect, in whichwe helplessly lie? and what retribution have we tofear, when we have had no real choice to do good orevil?

So much for philosophers; now let us see what isthe notion of conscience in this day in the popularmind. There, no more than in the intellectual world,does " conscience " retain the old, true, Catholic mean-ing of the word. ' There too the idea, the presence, ofa Moral Governor is far away from the use of it, fre-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conscience. 75

quent and emphatic as that use of it is. When menadvocate the rights of conscience, they in no sense *mean the rights of the Creator, nor the duty to Him,in thought and deed, of the creature; but the right pfthinking, speaking, writing, and acting, according totheir judgment or their humor, without any thoughtof God at all. They do not even pretend to go by anymoral rule, but they demand, what they think is anEnglishman's prerogative, to be his own master in allthings, and to profess what he pleases, asking no one'sleave, and accounting priest or preacher, speaker orwriter, unutterably impertinent, who dares to say aword against his going to perdition, if he like it, in hisown way. Conscience has rights because it has duties;but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it isthe very right and freedom of conscience to dispensewith conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to beindependent of unseen obligations. It becomes alicense to take up any or no religion, to take up this orthat and let it go again, to go to Church, to go tochapel, to boast of being above all religions and to bean impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is astern monitor, but in this century it has been super-seded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuriesprior to it never heard of, and could not have mistakenfor it, if they had. It is the right of self-will.

And now I shall turn aside for a moment to showhow it is that the Popes of our century have been mis-understood by English people, as if they really werespeaking against conscience in the true sense of theword, when in fact they were speaking against it in thevarious false senses, philosophical or popular, which in

Digitized by LiOOQIC

J6 Conscience.

this day are put upon the >vord. The present Pope,in his Encyclical of 1864, Quantd curd, speaks, (aswill come before us in the next section,) against"liberty of conscience," and he refers to his pre-decessor, Gregory XVI., who, in his Mir art vos, callsit a " deliramentum." It is a rule in formal ecclesias-tical proceedings, as I shall have occasion to noticelower down, when books or authors are condemned, touse the very words of the book or author, and to con-demn the words in that particular sense which theyhave in their context and their drift, not in the literal,not in the religious sense, such as the Pope might re-cognize, were they in another book or author. To takea familiar parallel, among many which occur daily.Protestants speak of the " Blessed Reformation j" Cath-olics too talk of " the Reformation," though they do notcall it blessed. Yet every " reformation " ought, fromthe very meaning of the word, to be good, not bad ; sothat Catholics seem to be implying a eulogy on anevent which, at the same time, they consider a surpass-ing evil. Here then they are taking the word and usingit in the popular sense of it, not in the Catholic. Theywould say, if they expressed their full meaning, " theso-called reformation." In like manner, if the Pope con-demned " the Reformation," it would be utterly so-phistical to say in consequence that he had declaredhimself against all reforms; yet this is how Mr. Glad-stone treats him, because he speaks of (so-called) libertyof conscience. To make this distinction clear, viz., be-tween the Catholic sense of the word " conscience," andthat sense in which the Pope condemns it, we find inthe Recueil des Allocutions, etc., the words accompanied

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conscience. jj

with quotation-marks, both, in Pope Gregory's and Pope;Pius's Encyclicals, thus:—Gregory's, " Ex hoc putidis-simo * indifferentismi fonte," (mind, " indifferentismi "is under quotation-marks, because the Pope will notmake himself answerable for so unclassical a word) ** ab-surda ilia fluit ac erronea sententia, seu potius delira-mentum, asserendam esse ac vindicandam cuilibet ' li-bertatem conscientiae.' " And that of Pius, " haud ti-ment erroneam illam fovere opinionem a Gregorio XVI.deliramentum appellatam, nimirum ' libertatem consci-entiae ' esse proprium cujuscunque hominis jus." BothPopes certainly scoff at the " so-called liberty of con-science," but there is no scoffing of any Pope, in for-mal documents addressed to the faithful at large, atthat most serious doctrine, the right and the duty offollowing that Divine Authority, the voice of con-science, on which in truth the Church herself is built.

. So indeed it is; did the Pope speak against Con*science in the true sense of the word, he would commita suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground fromunder his feet. His very mission is to proclaim themoral law, and to protect and strengthen that " Lightwhich enlighteneth every man that cometh into theworld." On the law of conscience and its sacrednessare founded both his authority in theory and his powerin fact. Whether this or that particular Pope in thisbad world always kept this great truth in view in all hedid, it is for history to tell. I am considering here thePapacy in its office and its duties, and in reference tothose who acknowledge its claims. They are not boundby a Pope's personal character or private acts, but byhis formal teaching. Thus viewing his position, we shall

Digitized by LiOOQIC

78 Conscience.

find that it is by the universal sense of right and wrong,the consciousness of transgression, the pangs of guilt,and the dread of retribution, as first principles, deeply-lodged in the hearts of men, thus and only thus, thathe has gained his footing in the world and achieved hissuccess. It is his claim to come from the Divine Law-giver, in order to elicit, protect, and enforce thosetruths which the Lawgiver has sown in our very nature—it is this and this only—that is the explanation ofhis length of life more than antediluvian. The cham-pionship of the Moral Law and of conscience is hisraison (Pttre. The fact of his mission is the answer tothe complaints of those who feel the insufficiency ofthe natural light; and the insufficiency of that light isthe justification of his mission.

All sciences, except the science of Religion, havetheir certainty in themselves; as far as they are sci-ences, they consist of necessary conclusions from unde-niable premisses, or of phenomena manipulated intogeneral truths by an irresistible induction. But thesense of right and wrong, which is the first element inreligion, is so delicate, so fitful, so easily puzzled, ob-scured, perverted, so subtle in its argumentative me-thods, so impressible by education, so biassed by prideand passion, so unsteady in its flight, that, in the strug-gle for existence amid various exercises and triumphs ofthe human intellect, this sense is at once the highestof all teachers, yet the least luminous; and the Church,the Pope, the Hierarchy are, in the Divine purpose, thesupply of an urgent demand. Natural Religion, certainas are its grounds and its doctrines as addressed tothoughtful, serious minds, needs, in order that it may

Digitized by

Google

Conscience. 79

speak to mankind with effect and subdue the world,to be sustained and completed by Revelation.

In saying all this, of course I must not be supposedto be limiting the Revelation of which the Church isthe keeper to a mere republication of the Natural Law;but still it is true, that, though Revelation is so distinctfrom the teaching of nature and beyond it, yet it is notindependent of it, nor without relations towards it, butis its complement, re-assertion, issue, embodiment, andinterpretation. The Pope, who comes of Revelation,has no jurisdiction over Nature. If, under the plea ofhis revealed prerogatives, he neglected his mission ofpreaching truth, justice, mercy, and peace, much more,if he trampled on the consciences of his subjects,—ifhe had done so all along, as Protestants say, then hecould not have lasted all these many centuries till now,so as to be made the mark of their reprobation. DeanMilman has told us above, how faithful he was to hi9duty in the medieval time, and how successful. After-wards, for a while the Papal chair was filled by men,who gave themselves up to luxury, security, and aPagan kind of Christianity; and we all know what amoral earthquake was the consequence, and how theChurch lost, thereby, and has lost to this day, one-halfof Europe. The Popes could not have recovered fromso terrible a catastrophe, as they have done, had theynot returned to their first and better ways, and thegrave lesson of the past is in itself the guarantee of thefuture.

Such is the relation of the ecclesiastical power to thehuman conscience:—however, another view may betaken of it. It may be said that no one doubts that

Digitized by LiOOQIC

80 Conscience.

the Pope's power rests on those weaknesses of humannature, that religious sense, which in ancient daysLucretius noted as the cause of the worst ills of ourrace; that he uses it dexterously, forming under shel-ter of it a false code of morals for his own aggrandise-ment and tyranny; and that thus conscience becomeshis creature and his slave, doing, as if on a divine sanc-tion, his will; so that in the abstract indeed and in ideait is free, but never free in fact, never able to take aflight of its own, independent of him, any more thanbirds whose wings are clipped;—moreover, that, if itwere able to exert a will of its own, then there wouldensue a collision more unmanageable than that betweenthe Church and the State, as being in one and the samesubject matter—viz., religion ; for what would becomeof the Pope's "absolute authority," as Mr. Gladstonecalls it, if the private conscience had an absolute au-thority also ?

I wish to answer this-important objection distinctly.

1. First, I am using the word " conscience " in thehigh sense in which I have already explained it; not asa fancy or an opinion, but as a dutiful obedience towhat claims to be a divine voice, speaking within us.

2. Secondly I observe that conscience is not a judg-ment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine,but bears immediately on conduct, on something to bedone or not done. " Conscience," says St. Thomas,"is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, bywhich we judge what hie et nunc is to be done as beinggood, or to be avoided as evil." Hence consciencecannot come into direct collision with the Church's orthe Pope's infallibility ; which is engaged only on gene-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

Conscience. 81

ral.propositions, or the condemnation of propositionssimply particular.

3. Next, I observe that, conscience being a practi-cal dictate, a collision is possible between it and thePope's authority only when the Pope legislates, orgives particular orders, and the like. But a Popeis not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands,nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration,nor in his public policy. Let it be observed thatthe Vatican Council has left him just as it found himhere. Mr, Gladstone's language on this point is to mequite unintelligible. Why, instead of using vague terms,does he not point out precisely the very words bywhich the Council has made the Pope in his acts infalli-ble ? Instead of so doing, he assumes a conclusionwhich is altogether false. He says, p. 34, " First comesthe Pope's infallibility; " then in the next page he in-sinuates that, under his infallibility, come acts of ex-communication, as if the Pope could not make mistakesin this field of action. He says, p. 35, " It may besought to plead that the Pope does not propose toinvade the country, to seize Woolwich, or burn Ports-mouth. He will only, at the worst, excommunicateopponents. . . Is this a good answer? After all,even in the Middle Ages, it was not by the direct actionof fleets and armies of their own that the Popes con-tended with kings who were refractory; it was mainlyby interdicts," etc. What have excommunication andinterdict to do with Infallibility ? Was St. Peter infal-lible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul with-stood him ? was St. Victor infallible when he separatedfrom his communion the Asiatic Churches? orLiberius

Digitized by LiOOQIC

82 Conscience.

when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius ?And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII., whenhe had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomewmassacre ? or Paul IV. in his conduct towards Eliza-beth ? or Sextus V. when he blessed the Armada ? orUrban VIII. when he persecuted Galileo ? No Catho-lic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible inthese acts. Since then infallibility alone could blockthe exercise of conscience, and the Pope is not infalli-ble in that subject-matter in which conscience is ofsupreme authority, no dead-lock, such as is implied inthe objection which I am answering, can take place be-tween conscience and the Pope.

4. But, of course, I have to say again, lest I shouldbe misunderstood, that when I speak of Conscience, Imean conscience truly so called. When it has the rightof opposing the supreme, though not infallible Authorityof the Pope, it must be something more than that mis-erable counterfeit which, as I have said above, nowgoes by the name. If in a particular case it is to betaken as a sacred and sovereign monitor, its dictate, inorder to prevail against the voice of the Pope, mustfollow upon serious thought, prayer, and all availablemeans of arriving at a right judgment on the matter inquestion. And further, obedience to the Pope is whatis called " in possession ; " that is, the onus probandi oiestablishing a case against him lies, as in all cases ofexception, on the side of conscience. Unless a man isable to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, thathe must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal injunc-'tion, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a greatsin in disobeying it. Primd facie it is his bounden

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conscience. 83

duty, even from a sentiment of loyalty, to believe thePope right and to act accordingly. He must vanquishthat mean, ungenerous, selfish, vulgar spirit of hisnature, which, at the very first rumour of a command,places itself in opposition to the Superior who gives it,asks itself whether he is not exceeding his right, andrejoices, in a moral and practical matter, to commencewith scepticism. He must have no wilful determina-tion to exercise a right of thinking, saying, doing justwhat he pleases, the question of truth and falsehood^right and wrong, the duty if possible of obedience, thelove of speaking as his Head speaks, and of standing inall cases on his Head's side, being simply discarded.If this necessary rule were observed, collisions betweenthe Pope's authority and the authority of consciencewould be very rare. On the other hand, in the factthat, after all, in extraordinary cases, the conscience of.each individual is free, we have a safeguard and secur-ity, were security necessary (which is a most gratuitoussupposition), that no Pope ever will be able, as theobjection supposes, to create a false conscience for hisown ends.

Now, I shall end this part of the subject, for I havenot done with it altogether, by appealing to various ofour theologians in evidence that, in what I have beensaying, I have not misrepresented Catholic doctrine onthese important points.

That is, on the duty of obeying our conscience atall hazards.

I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gous-set has adduced from the Fourth Lateran; that" He whoacts against his conscience loses his soul." This dictum

Digitized by LiOOQIC

84 Conscience.

is brought out with singular fulness and force in themoral treatises of theologians. The celebrated school,known as the Salmanticenses, or Carmelites of Sala-manca, lays down the broad proposition, that con-science is ever to be obeyed whether it tellstruly or erroneously, and that, whether the erroris the fault of the person thus erring or not.*They say that this opinion is certain, and*refer, asagreeing with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura,Caietan, Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Lay-man, Escobar, and fourteen others. Two of them evensay this opinion is de fide. Of course, if he is culpablein being in error, which he would have escaped, had hebeen more in earnest, for that error he is answerable toGod, but still he must act according to that error,while he is in it, because he in full sincerity thinks theerror to be truth.

Thus, if the Pope told the English Bishops toorder their priests to stir themselves energetically infavour of teetotalism, and a particular priest was fullypersuaded that abstinence from wine, etc., was practi-cally a Gnostic error, and therefore felt he could notso exert himself without sin; or suppose there was aPapal order to hold lotteries in each mission for somereligious object, and a priest could say in God's sightthat he believed lotteries to be morally wrong, thatpriest in either of these cases would commit a sin hieft nunc if he obeyed the Pope, whether he was .right

*"Aliqui opinantur quod conscientia erronea non obligat; Se-cundam sententiam, et certam, asserentem esse peccatum discordare aconscientia erronea, invincibili aut vincibili, tenet D. Thomas; quernsequuntur omnes Scholastici/V-?^^/. flforal. t. v., p. 12, ed. 1728.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conscience. S5

or wrong in his opinion, and, if wrong, although he.had not taken proper pains to get at the truth of thematter.

Busenbaum, of the Society of Jesus, whose work Ihave already had occasion to notice, writes thus :—" Aheretic, as long as he judges his sect to be more orequally deserving of belief, has no obligation to believe[in the Church*]" And he continues, "When menwho have been brought up in heresy, are persuadedfrom boyhood that we impugn and attack the word ofGod, that we are idolators, pestilent deceivers, andtherefore are to be shunned as pestilences, they can-not, while this persuasion lasts, with a safe conscience,hear us."—t. 1, p. 54.

Antonio Corduba, a Spanish Franciscan, states thedoctrine with still more point, because he makes men-tion of Superiors. " In no manner is it lawful to actagainst conscience, even though a Law, or a Superiorcommands it."—De Conscient., p. 138.

And the French Dominican, Natalis Alexander:—" If, in the judgment of conscience, though a mistakenconscience, a man is persuaded that what his Superiorcommands is displeasing to God, he is bound not toobey."— TheoL t. 2r p. 32.

The word " Superior " certainly includes the Pope;but, to bring out this point clearly, Cardinal Jacoba:tius in his authoritative work on Councils, which iscontained in Labbe's Collection of them, introducesthe Pope by name:—" If it were doubtful," he says," whether a precept [of the Pope] be a sin or not, wen\ust determine thus:—that, if he to whom the pre-cept is addressed has a conscientious sense that it is a

Digitized by LiOOQIC

86 Conscience.

sin and injustice, first it is his duty to put off thatsense; but, if he cannot, nor conform himself to thejudgment of the Pope, in that case it is his duty tofollow his own private conscience, and patiently to bearit, if the Pope punishes him."—lib. iv., p. 241.

Would it not be well for Mr. Gladstone to bringspassages from our recognized authors as confirmatoryof his view of our teaching, as those which I havequoted are destructive of it ? and they must be pas-sages declaring, not only that the Pope is ever to beobeyed, but that there are no exceptions to the rule,for exceptions must be in all concrete matters.

I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged tobring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeeddoes not seem quite the thing) I shall drink,—to thePope, if you please,—still, to Conscience first, and tothe Pope afterwards.

Digitized

by Google

The subject of Conscience leads us to the Encycli-cal, which is one of the special objects of Mr. Glad-stone's attack; and to do justice to it, I must, as inother sections, begin from an earlier date than 1864.

Modern Rome then is not the only place where thetraditions of the old Empire, its principles, provisions,and practices, have been held in honour; they havebeen retained, they have been maintained in substance,as the basis of European civilization down to this day,and notably among ourselves. In the Anglican estab-lishment the king took the place of the Pope; butthe Pope's principles kept possession. When the Popewas ignored, the relations between Pope and king wereignored too, and therefore we had nothing to do anymore with the old Imperial laws which shaped thoserelations; but the old idea of a Christian Polity wasstill in force. It was a first principle with Englandthat there was one true religion, that it was inheritedfrom an earlier time, that it came of direct Revelation,that it was to be supported to the disadvantage, to saythe least, of other religions, of private judgment, ofpersonal conscience. The Puritans held these princi-ples as firmly as the schoofof Laud. As to the ScotchPresbyterians, we read enough about them in the pagesof Mr. Buckle. The Stuarts went, but still their prin-ciples suffered no dethronement; their action was re-

87

Digitized by LiOOQIC

strained, but they were still in force, when this centuryopened.

It is curious to see how strikingly in this matter theproverb has been fulfilled," Out of sight, out of mind."Men of the present generation, born in the new civiliza-tion, are shocked to witness in the abiding Papal sys-tem the words, ways, and works of their grandfathers.In my own lifetime has that old world been alive, andhas gone its way. Who will say that the plea of con-science was as effectual, sixty years ago, as it is now inEngland, for the toleration of every sort of fancy re-ligion ? Had the Press always that wonderful elbow-room which it has now ? Might public gatherings beheld, and speeches made, and republicanism avowed inthe time of the Regency, as is possible now? Werethe thoroughfares open to monster processions at thatdate, and the squares and parks at the mercy of Sun-day manifestations? Could savants in that day insinu-ate what their hearers mistook for atheism in scientificassemblies, and artizans practise it in the centres ofpolitical action ? Could public prints, day after day,or week after week, carry on a war against religion,natural and revealed, as now is the case ? No ; law orpublic opinion would not suffer it; we may be wiser orbetter now, but we were then in the wake of the HolyRoman Church, and had been so from the time of theReformation. We were faithful to the tradition offifteen hundred years. All this was called Toryism,and men gloried in the name; now it is called Poperyand reviled.

When I was young the State had a conscience, .andthe Chief Justice of the day pronounced, not as a point

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of obsolete law, but as an energetic, living truth, thatChristianity was the law of the land. And by Chris-tianity was meant pretty much what Bentham callsChurch-of-Englandism, its cry being the dinner toast," Church and king." Blackstone, though he wrote ahundred years ago, was held, I believe, as an authority,on the state of the law in this matter, up to the begin-ning of this century. On the supremacy of Religionhe writes as follows, that is, as I have abridged him formy purpose.

" The belief of a future state of rewards and punish-ments, etc., etc., . . these are the grand foundation ofall judicial oaths. All moral evidence, all confidencein human veracity, must be weakened by irreligion,and overthrown by infidelity. Wherefore all affrontsto Christianity, or endeavours to depreciate its efficacy,are highly deserving of human punishment. It wasenacted by the statute of William III. that if any per-son educated in, and having made profession of\ theChristian religion, shall by writing, printing, teaching,or advised speaking, deny the Christian religion to betrue, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority,"or again in like manner, " if any person educated in theChristian religion shall by writing, etc., deny any one ofthe Persons of the Holy Trinity to be God, or main-tain that there are more gods than one, he shall on thefirst offence be rendered incapable to hold any office orplace of trust; and for the second, be rendered incapa-ble of bringing any action, being guardian, executor,legatee, or purchaser of lands, and shall suffer threeyears' imprisonment without bail. To give room, how-ever4 for repentance, if, within four months after the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

first conviction, the delinquent will in open court pub-licly renounce his error, he is discharged for that oncefrom all disabilities."

Again: " those who absent themselves from the di-vine worship in the established Church, through totalirreligion, and attend the service of no other persuasion,forfeit one shilling to the poor every Lord's day theyso absent themselves, and £20 to the king, if they con-tinue such a default for a month together. And if theykeep any inmate, thus irreligiously disposed, in theirhouses, they forfeit £10 per month."

Further, he lays down that "reviling the ordinancesof the Church is a crime of a much grosser nature thanthe other of non-conformity; since it carries with itthe utmost indecency, arrogance, and ingratitude ;—in-decency, by setting up private judgment in oppositionto public; arrogance, by treating with contempt andrudeness what has at least a better chance to beright than the singular notions of any particularman ; and ingratitude, by denying that indulgenceand liberty of conscience to the members of the na-tional Church, which the retainers to every petty con-venticle enjoy/'

Once more: " In order to secure the establishedChurch against perils from non-conformists of all de-nominations, infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists,and sectaries, there kre two bulwarks erected, calledthe Corporation and Test Acts ; by the former, no per-son can be legally elected to any office relating to thegovernment of any city or corporation, unless, withina twelvemonth before, he has received the sacramentof the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

t

Church of England ; . . the other, called the TestAct, directs all officers, civil and military, to make thedeclaration against transubstantiation within sixmonths after their admission, and also within thesame time to receive the sacrament according to theusage of the Church of England.'' The same test beingundergone by all persons who desired to be naturalized,the Jews also were excluded from the privileges of Pro-testant churchmen.

Laws, such as these, of course gave a tone to so-ciety, to all classes, high and low, and to the publica-tions, periodical or other, which represented publicopinion. Dr. Watson, who was the liberal prelate ofhis day, in his answer to Paine, calls him (unless mymemory betrays me) " a child of the devil and anenemy of all righteousness." Cumberland, a man ofthe world, (here again I must trust to the memory ofmany past years) reproaches a Jewish writer for ingra-titude in assailing, as he seems to have done, a tolerantreligious establishment; and Gibbon, an unbeliever,feels himself at liberty to look down on Priestly, whose"Socinian shield," he says, "has been repeatedlypierced by the mighty spear of Horsley, and whosetrumpet of sedition may at length awake the magis-trates of a free country."

Such was the position of free opinion and dissentingworship in England till quite a recent era, when oneafter another the various disabilities which I have beenrecounting, and many others besides, melted away, likesnow at spring-tide ; and we all wonder how they couldever have been in force. The cause of this great revo-lution is obvious, and its effect inevitable. Though I

Digitized by LiOOQI

profess tQ be an admirer of the principles now super*seded, in themselves, mixed up as they were with theimperfections and evils incident to everything human,nevertheless I say frankly I do not see how they couldpossibly be maintained in the ascendant. When theintellect is cultivated, it is as certain that it will de-velop into a thousand various shapes, as that infinitehues and tints and shades of colour will be reflectedfrom the earth's surface, when the sun-light touches it;and in matters of religion the more, by reason of theextreme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental ac-tion by which they are determined. During the lastseventy years, first one class of the community, thenanother, lias awakened up to thought and opinion.Their multiform views on sacred subjects necessarilyaffected and found expression in the governing order.The State in past time had a conscience; George theThird had a conscience; but there were other men atthe head of affairs besides him with consciences, andthey spoke for others besides themselves, and what wasto be done, if he could not work without them, andthey could not work with him, as far as religious ques-tions came up at the Council-board ? This brought ona dead-lock in the time of his successor. The minis-try of the day could not agree together in the policyor justice of keeping up the state of things whichBlackstone describes. The State ought to have a con-science ; but what if it happen to have half-a-dozen, ora score, or a hundred, in religious matters, each dif-ferent from each ? I think Mr. Gladstone has broughtout the difficulties of the situation himself in his Auti-biography. No government could be formed, if re-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

ligious unanimity was a sine qua non. What then wasto be done ? As a necessary consequence, the wholetheory of Toryism, hitherto acted on, came to piecesand went the way of all flesh. This was in the nature ofthings. Not a hundred Popes could have hindered it,unless Providence interposed by an effusion of divinegrace on the hearts of men, which would amount to amiracle, and perhaps would interfere with human re-sponsibility. The Pope has denounced the sentimentthat he ought to come to terms with *' progress, liber-alism, and the new civilization." I have no thought atall of disputing his words. I leave the great problemto the future. God will guide other Popes to act whenPius goes, as He has guided him. No one can dislikethe democratic principle more than I do. No onemourns, for instance, more than I, over the state ofOxford, given up, alas! to " liberalism and progress," tothe forfeiture of her great medieval motto," Dominusilluminatio mea," and with a consequent call on her togo to Parliament or the Heralds College for a new one ;but what can we do? All I know is, that Toryism,that is, loyalty to persons, " springs immortal in thehuman breast;" that Religion*is a spiritual loyalty;and that Catholicity is the only divine form of Religion.And thus, in centuries to come, there may be foundout some way of uniting what is free in the new struc-ture of society with what is authoritative in the old,without any base compromise with " Progress" andu Liberalism."

But to return:—I have noticed the great revolutionin the state of the Law which has taken place since1828 for this reason :—to suggest that Englishmen, who

Digitized by LiOOQIC

within fifty years kept up the Pope's system, are notexactly the parties to throw stones at the Pope forkeeping it up still.

But I go further:—in fact the Pope has not said onthis subject of conscience (for that is the main subjectin question) what Mr. Gladstone makes him say. Onthis point I desiderate that fairness in his Pamphletwhich we have a right to expect from him; and intruth his unfairness is wonderful. He says, pp. 15, 16,that the Holy See has " condemned " the maintainersof " the Liberty of the Press, of conscience, and ofworship/' Again, that the " Pontiff has condemnedfree speech, free writing, a free press, toleration of non-conformity, liberty of conscience," p. 42. Now, is notthis accusation of a very wholesale character ? Whowould not understand it to mean that the Pope hadpronounced a universal anathema against all theseliberties in Mof and that English law, on the contrary,allowed those liberties in toto, which the Pope hadcondemned ? But the Pope has done no such thing.The real question is in what respect, in what measure,has he spoken against liberty: the grant of liberty ad-mits of degrees. Blackstorie is careful to show howmuch more liberty the law allowed to the subject in hisday, how much less severe it was in its safeguardsagainst abuse, than it had used to be ; but he neverpretends that it is conceivable that liberty should haveno boundary at all. The very idea of political societyis based upon the principle that each member of itgives up a portion of his natural liberty for advantageswhich are greater than that liberty; and the question

Digitized by LiOOQIC

TAj Encyclical of 1864. 95

is, whether the Pope, in any act of his which touchesus Catholics, in any ecclesiastical or theological state-ment of his, has propounded any principle, doctrine, orview, which is not carried out in fact at this time inBritish courts of law, and would not be conceded byBlackstone. I repeat, the very notion of human so-ciety is a relinquishment, to a certain point, of theliberty of its members individually, for the sake of acommon security. Would it be fair on that account tosay that the British Constitution condemns all libertyof conscience in word and in deed ?

We Catholics, on our part, are denied liberty of ourreligion by English law in various ways, but we do notcomplain, because a limit must be put to even inno-cent liberties, and we acquiesce in it for the socialcompensations which we gain on the whole. Ourschool boys cannot play cricket on Sunday, not even incountry places, for fear of being taken before a magis-trate and fined. In Scotland we cannot play the pianoon Sundays, much less the fiddle, even in our ownrooms. I have had before now a lawyer's authorityfor saying that a religious procession is illegal evenwithin our own premises. Till the last year or two wecould not call our Bishops by the titles which our Re-ligion gave them. A mandate from the Home Secre-tary obliged us to put off our cassocks when we wentout of doors. We are forced to pay rates for the es-tablishment of secular schools which we cannot use,and then we have to find means over again for buildingschools of our own. Why is not all this as much anoutrage on our conscience as the prohibition upon Pro-testants at Rome, Naples, and Malaga, before the late

Digitized by LiOOQIC

political changes—not to hold their services in a pri-vate, or in the ambassador's house, or outside thewalls,—but to flaunt them in public and thereby toirritate the natives? Mr. Gladstone seems to think itis monstrous for the Holy See to sanction such a pro-hibition. If so, may we not call upon him to gain forus in Birmingham " the free exercise of our religion,"in making a circuit of the streets in our vestments,and chanting the " Pange Lingua," and the protectionof the police against the mob which would be sure togather round us,—particularly since we are Englishborn; but the Protestants at Malaga or Naples wereforeigners.* But we have the good sense neitherto feel it a hardship, nor to protest against it as agrievance.

But now for the present state of English Law :—Isay seriously Mr. Gladstone's accusation of us availsquite as much against Blackstone's four volumes,against laws in general, against the social contract, asagainst the Pope. What the Pope has said, I willshow presently: first let us see what the statute bookhas to tell us about the present state of English libertyof speech, of the press, and of worship.

First, as to public speaking and meetings :—do weallow of seditious language, or of insult to the sove-reign, or his representatives ? Blackstdne says, that amisprision is committed against him by speaking orwriting against him, cursing or wishing him ill, givingout scandalous stories concerning him, or doing any-thing that may tend to lessen him in the esteem of his

* "Hominibus illuc immigrantibus." These words Mr. Glad-stone omits, also lie translates •' publicum" " free," pp. 17, 18.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

subjects, may weaken his government, or may raisejealousies between him and his people." Also he says,that " threatening and reproachful words to any judgesitting in the Courts " involve " a high misprision, andhave been punished with large fines, imprisonment,and corporal punishment/' And we may recollectquite lately the judges of the Queen's Bench prohi-bited public meetings and speeches which had fortheir object the 'issue of a case then proceeding inCourt.

Then, again, as to the Press, there are two modesof bridling it, one before the printed matter is pub-lished, the other after. The former is the method ofcensorship, the latter that of the law of libel. Eachis a restriction on the liberty of the Press. We preferthe latter* I never heard it said that the law of libelwas of a mild character; and I never heard that thePope, in any Brief or Rescript, had insisted on acensorship.

Lastly, liberty of worship: as to the English restric-tion of it, we have had a notable example of it in thelast session of Parliament, and we shall have still moreedifying illustrations of it in the next, though not cer-tainly from Mr. Gladstone. The ritualistic party, inthe free exercise of their rights, under the shelter ofthe Anglican rubrics, of certain of the Anglican offices,of the teaching of their great divines, and of theirconscientious interpretation of their Articles, have, attheir own expense, built churches for worship aftertheir own way; and, on the other hand, Parliamentand the newspapers are attempting to put them down,not so much because they are acting against the tradi-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

tion and the law of the Establishment, but because ofthe national dislike and dread of the principles and doc-trines which their worship embodies.

When Mr. Gladstone has a right to say broadly, byreason of these restrictions, that British law and theBritish people condemn the maintainers of liberty ofconscience, of the press, and of worship, in toto, thenmay he say so of the Encyclical, or account of thosewords which to him have so frightful a meaning.

Now then let us see, on the other hand, what theproposition is, the condemnation of which leads himto say, that the Pope has unrestrictedly " condemnedthose who maintain the liberty of the Press, the libertyof conscience and of worship, and the liberty of speech,"p. 16,—has " condemned free speech, free writing, anda free press," p. 42. The condemned proposition speaksas follows:—

" Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherentright of all men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in everyrightly constituted society." 3. It is a right to all sortsof liberty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it oughtnot to be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical orcivil, as far as public speaking, printing, or any otherpublic manifestation of opinions is concerned."

Now, is there any government on earth that couldstand the strain of such a doctrine as this? It startsby taking for granted that there are certain Rights ofman ; Mr. Gladstone so considers, I believe ; but otherdeep thinkers of the day are quite of another opinion ;however, if the doctrine of the proposition is true,then the right of conscience, of which it speaks, beinginherent in man, is of universal force—that is, all over

Digitized by LiOOQIC

the world—also, says the proposition, it is aright whichmust be recognized by all rightly constituted govern-ments. Lastly, what is the right of conscience thus in-herent in our nature, thus necessary for all states? Theproposition tells us. It is the liberty of every one togive public utterance, in every possible shape, by everypossible channel, without any let or hindrance from Godor man, to all his notions whatsoever.*

Which of the two in this matter is peremptory andsweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesishimself, or the Pope who has condemned what he hasuttered ? Who is it who would force upon the world auniversal ? All that the Pope has done is to deny auniversal, and what a universal! a universal liberty toall men to say out whatever doctrines they may holdby preaching, or by the press, uncurbed by church orcivil power. Docs not this bear out what I said in theforegoing section of the sense in which Pope Gregorydenied a "liberty of conscience? " It is a liberty ofself-will. What if a man's conscience embraces theduty of regicide? or infanticide? or free love? Youmay say that in England the good sense of the nationwould stifle and extinguish such atrocities. True, butthe proposition says that it is the very right of everyone, by nature, in every well constituted society. If so,why have we gagged the Press in Ireland on the groundof its being seditious? Why is not India broughtwithin the British constitution ? It seems a light

* "Jus civibus inesse^A otnnifnodam\\he.xKi\vmt nullA vel eccle-siastica vel civili auctoritate coarctandam, quo suos conceptus quos-cumiue sivc voce, sivc typis, sive alia rationc, palam publiccquc mani-festarc ac dcclararc valcant."

Digitized by LiOOQIC

ioo The Encyclical of 1864.

epithet for the Pope to use, when he calls such a doc-trine of conscience ddiramentum: of all conceivableabsurdities it is the wildest and most stupid. Has Mr.Gladstone really no better complaint to make againstthe Pope's condemnations than this ?

Perhaps he will say, Why should the Pope take thetrouble to condemn what is so wild ? But he does: andto say that he condemns something which he does notcondemn, and then to inveigh against him on theground of that something else, is neither just norlogical.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Now I come to the Syllabus of " Errors," the pub-lication of which has been exclaimed against in Eng-land as such singular enormity, and especially by Mr.Gladstone. The condemnation of theological state-ments which militate against the Catholic Faith is oflong usage in the Church. Such was the condemna-tion of the heresies of Wickliffe in the Council of Con-stance ; such those of Huss, of Luther, of Baius, ofJansenius; such the condemnations which were pub-lished by Sextus IV., Innocent XL, Clement XL, Be-nedict XIV., and other Popes. Such condemnationsare no invention of Pius XL The Syllabus is a col-lection of such erroneous propositions, as he has con-demned during his Pontificate ; there are 80 of them.

The word " Syllabus" means a collection; theFrench translation calls it a " R/sum/;"—a. Collectionof what ? I have already said, of propositions,—propo-sitions which the Pope in his various Allocutions, En-cyclicals, and like documents, since he has been Pope,has pronounced to be Errors. Who gathered the pro-positions out of these Papal documents, and put themtogether in one ? We do not know; all we know isthat, by the Pope's command, this Collection of Errorswas sent by his Foreign Minister to the Bishops. He,Cardinal Antonelli, sent to them at the same time theEncyclical of December, 1864, which is a document ofdogmatic authority. The Cardinal says, in his circular

Digitized by LiOOQIC

102 The Syllabus.

to them, that the Pope ordered him to do so. ThePope thought, he says, that perhaps the Bishops hadnot seen some of his Allocutions, and other authorita-tive letters and speeches of past years ; in consequencethe Pope had had the Errors which, at one time orother he had therein condemned, brought together intoone, and that for the use of the Bishops.

Such is the Syllabus and its object. There is not aword in it of the Pope's own writing; there is nothingin it at all but the Erroneous Propositions themselves—that is, except the heading "A Syllabus, containingthe principal Errors of our times, which are noted inthe Consistorial Allocutions, in the Encyclicals, and inother Apostolical Letters of our most Holy Lord,Pope Pius IX." There is one other addition—viz.,after each proposition a reference is given to the Allo-cution, Encyclical, or other document in which it iscondemned.

The Syllabus, then, is to be received with profoundsubmission, as having been sent by the Pope's author-ity to the Bishops of the world. It certainly has in-directly his extrinsic sanction ; but intrinsically, andviewed in itself, it is nothing more than a digestof certain Errors made by an anonymous writer. Therewould be nothing on the face of it, to show that thePope.had ever seen it, page by page, unless the " Im-primatur " implied in the Cardinal's letter had been anevidence of this. It has no mark or seal put upon itwhich gives it a direct relation to the Pope. Who isits author? Some select theologian or high officialdoubtless; can it be Cardinal Anto'nelli himself? Nosurely : any how it is not the Pope, and I do not see

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabtts. \o

o

my way to accept it for what it is not. I do not speakas if I had any difficulty in recognizing and condemn-ing the Errors which it catalogues, did the Pope him-self bid me ; but he hat not as yet done so, and hecannot delegate his Magisterium to another. I wishwith St. Jerome to " speak with the Successor of theFisherman and the Disciple of the Cross." I assent tothat which the Pope propounds in faith and morals,but it must be he speaking officially, personally, andimmediately, and not any one else, who has a holdover me. The Syllabus is not an official act, becauseit is not signed, for instance, with " Datum Romae,Pius P. P. IX.," or "sub annuloPiscatoris," or in someother way; it is not a personal, for he does not addresshis " Venerabiles Fratres," or " Dilecto Filio," orspeak as " Pius Episcopus;" it is not an immediate,for it comes to the Bishops only through the CardinalMinister of State.

If, indeed, the Pope should ever make that anony-mous compilation directly his own, then of course Ishould bow to it and accept it as strictly his. Hemight have done so; he might do so still; again, hemight issue a fresh list of Propositions in addition, andpronounce them to be Errors, and I should take thatcondemnation to be of dogmatic authority, becauseI believe him appointed by his Divine Master todetermine in the detail of faith and morals what is trueand what is false. But such an act of his he wouldformally authenticate; he would speak in his ownname, as Leo X. or Innocent XL did, by Bull or Let-ter Apostolic. Or, if he wished to speak less authori-tatively, he would speak through a Sacred Congrega-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

104 The Syllabus.

tion; but the Syllabus makes no claim to be acknow-ledged as the word of the Pope. - Moreover, if thePope drew up that catalogue, as it may be called, hewould discriminate the errors one from another, forthey greatly differ in gravity, and he would guardagainst seeming to. say that all intellectual faults areequal. What gives cogency to this remark is, that acertain number of Bishops and theologians/ when aSyllabus was in contemplation, did wish for such a for,,mal act on the part of the Pope, and in consequencethey drew up for his consideration the sort of docu-ment on which, if he so willed, he might suitablystamp his infallible sanction ; but he did not accede totheir prayer. This composition is contained in the"Recueil des Allocutions" etc., and is far more than amere u collection of errors." It is headed, " Theses adApostolicam Sedem delatae cum censuris" etc., andeach error from first to last has the ground of its con- .demnation marked upon it. There are sixty-one ofthem. The first is" impia, injuriosa religioni," etc.; thesecond is " complexiv6 sumpta, falsa," etc.; the thirdthe same; the fourth " hseretica," and so on, theepithets affixed having a distinct meaning, and denot-ing various degrees of error. Such a document, unlikethe Syllabus, has a substantive character.

Here I am led to interpose a remark;—it isplain, then, that there are those near, or withaccess, to the Holy Father, who would, if theycould, go much further in the way of assertionand command, than the divine Assistentia, whichovershadows him, wills or permits: so that his actsand his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 105

scrutinized and weighed, before we can be sure whatreally he has said. Utterances which must be receivedas coming from an Infallible Voice are not made everyday, indeed they are very rare; and those which are bysome persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do notalways turn out what they are said to be; nay, evensuch as are really dogmatic must be read by definiterules and by traditional principles of interpretation,which are as cogent and unchangeable as the Pope'sown decisions themselves. What I have to say pres-ently will illustrate this truth; meanwhile I use the cir-cumstance which has led to my mentioning it, for an-other purpose here. When intelligence which we re-ceive from Rome startles and pains us from its seem-ingly harsh or extreme character, let us learn to havesome little faith and patience, and not take for grantedthat all that is reported is the truth. There are thosewho wish and try to carry measures, and declare theyhave carried, when they have not carried them. Howmany strong things, for instance, have been reported witha sort of triumph on one side and ivith irritation and de-spondency on the other, of what the Vatican Councilhas done; whereas the very next year after it, BishopFessler, the Secretary General of the Council, bringsout his work on " True and False Infallibility," * reduc-ing what was said to be so monstrous to its truedimensions. When I see all this going on, those grandlines in the Greek Tragedy always rise to my lips:

ovnGos rav Aio<S apfxovlav dvardov rtapeiiiaGi fiovXai.

And still more the consolation given us by the Divine

* This History of the Council will soon be published by Brown,Oates & Co.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

lo6 The Syllabus.

Speaker, that though the swelling sea is so threateningto look at, yet there is One who rules it and says:"Hitherto shalt thou come and no further, and hereshall thy proud waves be stayed." But to return:the Syllabus, then, has no dogmatic force. It ad-dresses us not in its separate portions, but as a \yhole,and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedi-ence, not of faith, that obedience being shown by hav-ing recourse to the original and authoritative docu-ments, (Allocutions and the like,) to which the Syllabuspointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to thosedocuments which are authoritative, we find the Sylla-bus cannot even be.called an echo of the ApostolicVoice ; for, in matters in which wording is so import-ant, it is not an exact transcript of the words of thePope, in its account of the errors condemned"—just aswould be natural in what is an index for reference.

Mr. Gladstone indeed wishes to unite the Syllabustp that Encyclical which so moved him in December,1864, and says that the Errors noted in the Syllabusare all brought under the infallible judgment pro-nounced on certain errors specified in the Encyclical.This is an untenable assertion. He says of the Popeand of the Syllabus, p. 20: "These are not mere opin-ions of the Pope himself, nor even are they opinionswhich he might paternally recommend to the piousconsideration of the faithful. With the promulgationof his opinions is unhappily combined, in the Encycli-cal Letter which virtually, though not expressly, in-cludes the whole, a command to all his spiritual chil-dren (from which we command we, the disobedientchildren, are in no way excluded) to hold tlictn? and

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 107

he appeals in proof of this to the language of theEncyclical; but let us see what that language is. ThePope speaks thus, as Mr. Gladstone himself quoteshim : u All and each of the wrong opinions and doc-trines specially mentioned in these letters We, by ourApostolic Authority, reprobate, proscribe, and con-demn ; and it is our will and command that the samebe in like manner held reprobated, proscribed, and con-demned by all the children of the Catholic Church."—Encyc, Dec. 8, 1864. He says as plainly as words canspeak that the wrong opinions, which in this passage hecondemns, are specified in the Encyclical and not outsideof it; and when we look into the earlier part, there areabout ten of them. There is not a single word in theEncyclical to show the Pope in it was alluding to theSyllabus." The Syllabus does not exist so far 'as thelanguage of the Encyclical is concerned. This gratui-tous assumption is marvellously unfair, and the onlyconnections between the Syllabus and the Ency-clical are external to both—connections of time andorgan—Cardinal Antonelli sending them both to theBishops with the introduction of one and the same let-ter. In that letter he speaks to the Bishops thus, as Iparaphrase his words : *—The Holy Father sends youby me a list, which he has caused to be drawn up and

* His actual words (abridged) are these:—" Notre T.S.S. Pius IX.n'a jamais ccsse de proscrire les principales erreurs de notre tres-mal-heureuse epoque, par ses Encycliques, et par ses Allocutions, etc.Mais, comme il peut arriver que tous les actes pontificaux ne .per-viennent pas a chacun des Ordinaires, le meme Souverain Pontifc avoulu que Ton redigeat un Syllabus de ces memes erreurs, destine actre envoye a tous les Eyeques, etc. II m'a cnsuite ordonne de veillcra ce que ce Syllabus imprime fftt envoye a V.E.R. dans ce temps on

Digitized by LiOOQIC

I oft The Syllabus.

printed, of the errors which he has in various formaldocuments, in the course of the last eighteen years,condemned. At the same time, and with that list oferrors, he is sending you a new Encyclical, which hehas judged it apropos to write to the Catholic Bishops;—so I send you both at once."

The Syllabus, then, is a list, or rather an index, ofthe Pope's Encyclical or Allocutional condemnations,an index raisonnt,—not alphabetical, as is found, forinstance, in Bellarmine's or Lambertini's works,—drawn up by the Pope's orders, out of his paternal carefor the flock of Christ, and conveyed to the Bishopsthrough his Minister of State. But we can no moreaccept it as de fide, as a dogmatic document, thanother index or table of contents. Take a parallel case,mutatis mutandis: Counsel's opinion being asked on apoint of law, he goes to his law-books, writes down hisanswer, and, as authority, refers his client to 23 GeorgeIII., c. 5, s. 11; 11 Victoria, c. 12, s. 19, and to Tho-mas v. Smith, Att.-Gen. v. Roberts, and Jones v.. Owen.Who would say that that sheet of foolscap had forceof law, when it was nothing more than a list of refer-ences to the Statutes of the Realm, or Judges' deci-sions, in which the Law's voice really was found ?

The value of the Syllabus, then, lies in its references;frut of these Mr. Gladstone has certainly availed himselfvery little. Yet, in order to see the nature and extent of rthe condemnation passed on any proposition of theSyllabus, it is absolutely necessary to turn out the

}e mtoe Souverain Pontife a jug6 a propos d'ecriro un autre LettreEncyclique. Ainsj, jc nj'empn&sse cTsnvoyer a V.E. ce Syllabus avecpps Levies,"

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 109

passage of the Allocution, Encyclical, or other docu-ment, in which the condemnation is found ; for thewording of the errors which the Syllabus contains is tobe interpreted by its references. Instead of this Mr.Gladstone uses forms of speech about the Syllabuswhich only excite in me fresh wonder. Indeed, hespeaks upon these ecclesiastical subjects generally in astyle in which priests and parsons are accused bytheir enemies of speaking concerning geology. Forinstance, the Syllabus, as we have seen, is a list orindex; but he calls it " extraordinary declarations," p.21. How can a list of Errors be a series of Pontifical" Declarations ? "

However, perhaps he would say that, in speakingof " Declarations," he was referring to the authorita-tive statements which I have accused him of neglect-ing. With all my heart; but then let us see howthose statements fulfil the character he gives of them.He calls them" Extraordinary declarations on personaland private duty," p. 21,and " stringent condemnations,"p. 19. Now, I certainly must grant that some arestringent, but only some. One of the most severethat I have found among them is that in the ApostolicLetter of June 10, 1851, against some heretic priestout at Lima, whose elaborate work in six volumesagainst the Curia Romana, is pronounced to be in itsvarious statements scandalous, rash, false, schismatical,injurious to the Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Coun-cils impious and heretical." It well deserved to beCalled by these names, which are not terms of abuse,but each with its definite meaning; and, if Mr. Glad-stone, in speaking of the condemnations, had confined

Digitized by LiOOQIC

no The Syllabus.

his epithet " stringent " to it, no one would have com-plained of him. And another severe condemnation isthat of the works of Professor Nuytz. But let usturn to some other of the so-called condemnations, inorder to ascertain whether they answer to his generaldescription of them.

I. For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the "er-roneous Propositions ") that, ** It is no longer expedientthat the Catholic Religion should be established to theexclusion of all others/' When we turn to the Allocu-tion, which is the ground of its being put into theSyllabus, what do we find there ? First, that the Popewas speaking, not of States universally, but of one par-ticular State, Spain, definitely Spain ; secondly, he ivasnot speaking of the proposition in question directly, ordogmatically, or separately, but was protesting againstthe breach in many ways of the Concordat on the partof the Spanish government; further, that he was notreferring to any theological work containing it, nor con-templating any proposition; nor, on the other hand,using any word of condemnation at all, nor using anyharsher terms of the Government in question thanthose of " his wonder and bitterness/' And again,taking the Pope's remonstrance as it stands, is it anygreat cause of complaint to Englishmen, who so latelywere severe in their legislation upon Unitarians, Catho-lics, unbelievers and others, that the Pope does merelynot think it expedient for every state from this timeforth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory,and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is aHthat he denies. As in the instance in the foregoingsection, he does but deny a universal, which the " erro-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 111

neous proposition" asserts without any explana-tion.

2. Another of Mr. Gladstone's " stringent Condem-nations " (his 18th) is that of the Pope's denial of theproposition that " the Roman Pontiff can and ought tocome to terms with Progress, Liberalism, and the NewCivilization." I turn to the Allocution of March 18,1861, and find there no formal condemnation of thisProposition at all. The Allocution is a long argumentto the effect that the moving parties in that Progress,Liberalism, and new Civilization, make use of it so seri-ously to the injury of the Faith and the Church, thatit is both out of the power, and contrary to the duty,of the Pope to come to terms with them. Nor wouldthose prime movers themselves differ from him here;certainly in this country it is the common cry thatLiberalism is and will be the Pope's destruction, andthey wish and mean it so to be. This Allocution onthe subject is at once beautiful, dignified, and touch-ing : and I cannot conceive how Mr. Gladstone shouldmake stringency his one characteristic of these con-demnations, especially when after all there is here nocondemnation" at all.

3. Take, again, Mr. Gladstone's 15th—"That theabolition of Temporal Power of the Popedom would behighly advantageous to the Church." Neither can Ifind in the Pope's Allocution any formal condemnationwhatever of this proposition, much less a " stringent "one. Even the Syllabus does no more in the case ofany one of the eighty, than to call it an " error; " andwhat the Pope himself says of this particular error isonly this:—" We cannot but in particular warn and

Digitized by LiOOQIC

112 The Syllabtis.

reprove, (monere et redarguere) those who applaud thedecree by which the Roman Pontiff has been despoiledof all the honour and dignity of his civil rule, andassert that the said decree, more than anything else,conduces to the liberty and prosperity of the Churchitself."—Alloc, April 20, 1849.

4. Take another of his instances, the 17th, the" error " that " in countries called Catholic the publicexercise of other religions may laudably be allowed."I have had occasion to mention already his mode ofhandling the Latin text of this proposition—viz., that,whereas the men who were forbidden the public exer-cise of their religion were foreigners, who had no rightto be in a country not their own at all, and might fairlyhave conditions imposed upon them during their staythere ; nevertheless Mr. Gladstone (apparently throughhaste) has left out the words " hominibus illuc immi-grantibus," on which so much turns. Next, as I haveobserved above, it was only the sufferance of their publicworship, and again of all worships whatsoever, howevermany and various, which the Pope blamed ; further, thePope's words did not apply to all States, but specially,and, as far as the Allocution goes, definitely, to NewGranada.

However, the point I wish to insist upon here is,that there was in this case no condemned propositionat all, but it was merely, as in the case of Spain, an actof the Government which the Pope protested againstThe Pope merely told that government that that act*and other acts which they had committed, gave himvery great pain ; that he had expected better things ofthem; that the way they went on was all of d. piece ;

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 113

and they had his best prayers." Somehow, it seems tome strange, for any one to call an expostulation likethis one of a set of " extraordinary declarations"" stringent condemnations."

I am convinced that the more the propositions andthe references contained in the Syllabus are examined,the more signally will the charge break down, broughtagainst the Pope on occasion of it: as to those Propo-sitions which Mr. Gladstone specially selects, some ofthem I have already taken in hand, and but few ofthem present any difficulty.

5. As to those on Marriage, I cannot follow Mr.Gladstone's meaning here, which seems to me veryconfused, and it would be going out of the line of re-mark which I have traced out for myself, (and whichalready is more extended than I could wish), were I totreat of them.

6. His fourth Error, (taken from the Encyclical)that " Papal judgments and decrees may, without sin,be disobeyed or differed from," is a denial of the prin-ciple of Hooker's celebrated work on EcclesiasticalPolity, and would be condemned by him as well as bythe Pope. And it is plain to common sense that nosociety can stand if its rules are disobeyed. Whatclub or union would not expel members who refusedso to be bound ?

7. And the 5th,* 8th, and 9th propositions are

* Father Coleridge, in his Sermon on " The Abomination of Deso-lation," observes that, whereas Proposition 5th speaks of "jura," MrGladstone translates " m^/ jura." Vid. that Sermon, and the "Month*for December, for remarks on various of theso Propositions; butabove all Mgr. Dupanloup's works on the subject, Messrs. Burns andOates, 1865.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

114 The Syllabus,

necessarily errors, if the Sketch of Cjiurch Polity drawnout in former sections is true, and are necessarily con-sidered as such by those, as the Pope, who maintainthat Polity.

8. The 10th Error, as others which I have noticedabove, is a universal (that *' in the conflict of laws, civiland ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail "), andthe Pope does but deny a universal.

9. Mr. Gladstone's I Ith, which I do not quite under-stand in his wording of it, runs thus:—"Catholics canapprove of that system of education for youth which isseparated from the Catholic faith and the Church'spower, and which regards the science only of physicalthings, and the outlines (fines) of earthly social lifealone or at least primarily.'* How is this not an" Error? " Surely there are Englishmen enough whoprotest against the elimination of religion from ourschools; is such a protest so dire an offence to Mr.Gladstone ?

10. And the 12th Error is this :—That " the science ofphilosophy and of morals, also the laws of the State,can and should keep clear of divine and ecclesiasticalauthority." This too will not be anything short of anerror in the judgment of great numbers of our ownpeople. Is Benthamism so absolutely the Truth, thatthe Pope is to be denounced because he has not yetbecome a convert to it ?

11. There are only two of the condemnations whichreally require a word of explanation ; I have alreadyreferred to them. One is that of Mr, Gladstone'ssixth Proposition, " Roman Pontiffs and EcumenicalCouncils, have departed from the limits of their power,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 115

have usurped the rights of Princes, and even in de-fining matters of faith and morals have erred." Thesewords are taken from the Lima Priest's book. Wehave to see then what he means by " the Rights ofPrinces/' for the proposition is condemned in hissense of the word. It is a rule of the Church in thecondemnation ^of a book to state the propositioncondemned in the words of the book itself, withoutthe Church being answerable for the words em-ployed.* I have already referred to this rule in my5th section. Now this Priest included among therights of Catholic princes that of deposing Bishops fromtheir sacred Ministry, of determining the impedimentsto marriage, of forming Episcopal sees, and of beingfree from episcopal authority in spiritual matters.When, then, the Proposition is condemned " that Popeshad usurped the rights of Princes;" what is meant is," the so-called rights of Princes," which were really therights of the Church, in assuming which there was nousurpation at all.

12. The other proposition, Mr. Gladstone's seventh,• the condemnation of which requires a remark, is this:

* Propositiones, de quibus Ecclesia judicium suum pronunciat,duobus praesertim modis spectari possunt, vel absolute ac in se ipsis,vel relative ad sensum libri et auctoris. In censurii propositionisalicujus auctoris vel libri, Ecclesia attenditad sensum ab eo internum,qui quidem ex verbis, ex tot& doctrinae ipsius serie, libri textura etconfirmatione, consilio, institutoque elicitur. Propositio libri velauctoris aquivoca esse potest, duplicemque habere sensum, rectumunum et alterum malum. Ubi contingit Ecclesiam propositiones hujus-modi aquivocas absque pravia distinctione sensuum configere% cen suratwice cadit in sensum perversum libri vel auctoris.—Tournely, t. 2, p 170,ed. 1752.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

116 The Syllabus.

" The Church has not the power to employ force (viainferendae) nor any temporal power direct or indirect."This is one of a series of Propositions found in thework of Professor Nuytz, entitled, " Juris EcclesiasticiInstitutiones," all of which are condemned in the Pope'sApostolic Letter of August 22, 1851. Now here " em-ploying force " is not the Pope's phrase but ProfessorNuytz's, and the condemnation is meant to run thus," It is an error to say, with Professor Nuytz, that whathe calls ' employing force * is not allowable to theChurch." That this is the right interpretation of the" error " depends of course on a knowledge of the Pro-fessor's work, which'! have never had an opportunityof seeing; but here I will set down what the receiveddoctrine of the Church is on ecclesiastical punishments,as stated in a work of the highest authority, since itcomes to us with letters of approval from Gregory XVI.and Pius IX.

"The opinion," says Cardinal Soglia, " that thecoercive power divinely bestowed upon the Churchconsists in the infliction of spiritual punishments alone,and not in corporal or temporal, seems more in har-mony with the gentleness of the Church. AccordinglyI follow their judgment, who withdraw from the Churchthe corporal sword, by which the body is destroyed orblood is shed. Pope Nicholas thus writes : 'The Churchhas no sword but the spiritual. She does not kill, butgives life, hence that well-known saying, ' Ecclesia ab-horret a sanguine.' But the lighter punishments,though temporal and corporal, such as shutting up in amonastery, prison, flogging, and others of the same

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 117

kind, short of effusion of blood, the Church jure suo caninflict."—(Institut. Jur., pp. 161, 9, Paris.)

And the Cardinal quotes the words of Fleury, " TheChurch has enjoined on penitent sinners almsgivings,fastings, and other corporal inflictions. . . Augus-tine speaks of beating with sticks, as sanctioned by theBishops, after the manner of masters in the case of ser-vants, parents in the case of children, and schoolmastersof scholars. Abbots flogged monks in the way of pa-ternal and domestic chastisement . . Imprisonment fora set time or for life is mentioned among canonicalpenances; priests and other clerics, who had been de-posed for their crimes, "being committed to prison inorder that they might pass the time to come in penancefor their crime, which thereby was withdrawn from thememory of the public."

But now I have to answer one question. If what Ihave said is substantially the right explanation to giveto the drift and contents of the Syllabus, have not I toaccount for its making so much noise, and giving suchdeep and wide offence on its appearancer It hasalready been reprobated by the voice of the world. Isthere not, then, some reason at the bottom of the aver-sion felt by educated Europe towards it, which I havenot mentioned ? This is a very large question toentertain, too large for this place; but I will say oneword upon it.

Doubtless one of the reasons of the excitementand displeasure which the Syllabus caused and causesso widely, is the number and variety of the proposi-tions marked as errors, and the systematic arrange**

Digitized by LiOOQIC

118 The Syllabus.

ment to which they were subjected. So large and ela-borate a work struck the public mind as a new law,moral, social, and ecclesiastical, which was to be thefoundation of a European code, and the beginning of anew world, in opposition to the social principles of the19th century ; and there certainly were persons in highstations who encouraged this idea. When thisbelief was once received, it became the interpretationof the whole Syllabus through the eighty Propositions,of which it recorded the erroneousness; as if theywere all portions of one great scheme of aggression.Then, when the public was definitely directed to theexamination of these Theses damnata, their drift andthe meaning of their condemnation was sure to be mis-understood, from the ignorance, in the case of all butecclesiastics, of the nature and force of ecclesiasticallanguage. The condemnations had been published inthe Pope's Encyclicals and Allocutions in the courseof the preceding eighteen years, and no one had takenany notice of them ; now, when they were brought alltogether, they on that very account made a great sen-sation. Next, that same fact seemed in itself a justi-fication, with minds already prejudiced, for expectingin each of them something extraordinary, and evenhostile, to society; and then, again, when they wereexamined one by one, certainly their real sense wasoften not obvious, and could not be, to the intelli-gence of laymen, high and low, educated andsimple.

Another circumstance, which I am not theologianenough to account for, is this,—that the wording ofmany of the erroneous propositions, as they arc drawn

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus, 119

up in the Syllabus, gives an apparent breadth to thematter condemned which is not found in the Pope'sown words in his Allocutions and Encyclicals. Notthat really there is any difference between the Pope'swords and Cardinal Antonelli's, for (as I have shownin various instances) what the former says in the con-crete, the latter does but repeat in the abstract; or, tospeak logically, when the Pope enunciates as true theparticular affirmative, " New Granada ought to keepup the establishment of the Catholic Religion," then(since its contradictory is necessarily false) the Car-dinal declares, " To say that no State should keep upthe establishment of the Catholic Religion is an error."But there is a dignity and beauty in the Pope's ownlanguage which the Cardinal's abstract Syllabus cannothave, and this gave to opponents an opportunity todeclaim against the Pope, which opportunity was in nosense afforded by what he said himself.

Then, again, it must be recollected, in connexionwith what I have said, that theology is a science, anda science of a special kind ; its reasoning, its method,its modes of expression, and its language are all itsown. Every science must be in the hands of a com-paratively few persons—that is, of those who havemade it a study. The courts of law have a great num-ber of rules in good measure traditional; so has theHouse of Commons, and, judging by what one readsin the public prints, men must have a noviceship therebefore they can be at perfect ease in their position.In like manner young theologians, and still more thosewho are none, are sure to mistake "in matters of detail;indeed a really first-rate theologian is rarely to be

Digitized by LiOOQIC

120 The Syllabus.

found. At Rome the rules of interpreting authori-tative documents are known with a perfection whichat this time is scarcely to be found elsewhere. Someof these rules, indeed, are known to all priests; buteven this general knowledge is not possessed by lay-men, much less by Protestants, however able and ex-perienced in their own several lines of study or pro-fession. One of those rules I have had several timesoccasion to mention. In the censure of books, whichoffend against doctrine or discipline, it is a commonrule to take sentences out of them in the author's owi\words, whether those words are in themselves good orbad, and to affix some note of condemnation to themin the sense in which they occur in the book in ques-tion. Thus it may happen that even what seems atfirst sight a true statement, is condemned for beingmade the shelter of an error; for instance: " Faithjustifies when it works," or " There is no religion wherethere is no charity," may be taken in a good sense ;but each proposition is condemned in Quesnell, be-cause it is false as he uses it.

A further illustration of the necessity ofa scientific education in order to understandthe value of Propositions, is afforded by a con-troversy which has lately gone on among us as tothe validity of Abyssinian Orders. In reply to adocument urged on one side of the question, it wasallowed on the other, that, " if that document was tobe read in the same way as we should read any ordi-nary judgment, the interpretation which had beengiven to it was the most obvious and natural." " Butit was well known," it was said, " to those who arc

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus, 121

familiar with the practical working of such decisions,that they are only interpreted with safety in the lightaf certain rules, which arise out of what is called thestylus curia" And then some of these rules weregiven ; first, " that to understand the real meaning of adecision, no matter how clearly set forth, we shouldknow the nature of the difficulty or dubium, as it wasunderstood by the tribunal that had to decide upon it.Next, nothing but the direct proposition, in its nudestand severest sense, as distinguished from indirect prop-ositions, the grounds of the decision, or implied state-ments, is ruled by the judgment. Also, if there is any-thing in the wording of a decision which appears incon-sistent with the teaching of an improved body of theo-logians, etc., the decision is to be interpreted so as toleave such teaching intact; " and so on.* It is plainthat the view thus opened upon us has furtherbearings than that for which I make use of ithere.

These remarks on scientific theology apply also ofcourse to its language. I have employed myself inillustration in framing a sentence, which would be plainenough to any priest, but I think would perplex anyProtestant. I hope it is not of too light a character tointroduce here. We will suppose then a theologian towrite as follaws : " Holding, as we do, that there is onlymaterial sin in those who, being invincibly ignorant,reject the truth, therefore in charity we hope that theyhave the future portion of formal believers, as consid-ering that by virtue of their good faith, though not of

* Month, Nov. and Dec, 1873.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

122 *The Syllabus.

the body of the faithful, they implicitly and interpreta-tively believe what they seem to deny."

What sense would this statement convey to themind of a member of some Reformation Society orProtestant League ? He would read it as follows, andconsider it all the more insidious and dangerous for itsbeing so very unintelligible : " Holding, as we do, thatthere is only a very considerable sin in those who rejectthe truth out of contumacious ignorance, therefore incharity we hope that they have the future portion ofnominal Christians, as considering, that by the excel-lence of their living faith, though not in the number ofbelievers, they believe without any hesitation, as inter-preters [of Scripture ?] what they seem to deny."

Now, considering that the Syllabus was intendedfor the Bishops, who would be the interpreters of it, asthe need arose, to their people, and it got bodily intoEnglish newspapers even before it was received atmany an episcopal residence, we shall not be surprisedat the commotion which accompanied its publication.

I have spoken of the causes intrinsic to the Syllabus,which have led to misunderstandings about it. As toexternal, I can be no judge myself as to what Catholicswho have means of knowing are very decided in declar-ing, the tremendous power of the Secret Societies. Itis enough to have suggested here, how a wide-spreadorganization like theirs might malign and frustrate themost beneficial acts of the Pope. One matter I hadinformation of myself from Rome at the time when theSyllabus had just been published, before there was yettime to ascertain how it would be taken by the worldat large. Now, the Rock of St. Peter on its summit

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Syllabus. 123

enjoys a pure and serene atmosphere, but there is agreat deal of Roman malaria at the foot of it. Whilethe Holy Father was in great earnestness and charityaddressing the Catholic world by his Cardinal Minister,there were circles of light-minded men in his city whowere laying bets with each other whether the Syllabuswould " make a row in Europe " or not. Of course itwas the interest of those who betted on the affirmativeside to represent the Pope's act to the greatest disad-vantage ; and it was very easy to kindle a flame in themass of English and other visitors at Rome which witha very little nursing was soon strong enough to takecare of itself.

Digitized

by Google

In beginning to speak of the Vatican Council, I amobliged from circumstances to begin by speaking ofmyself. The most unfounded and erroneous assertionshave publicly been made about my sentiments towardsit, and as confidently as they are unfounded. Only afew weeks ago it was stated categorically by someanonymous correspondent of a Liverpool paper, withreference to the prospect of my undertaking the taskon which I am now employed, that it was, " in fact,understood that at one time Dr. Newman was on thepoint of uniting with Dr, DOllinger and his party, andthat it required the earnest persuasion of several mem-bers of the Roman Catholic Episcopate to prevent himfrom taking that step/'—an unmitigated and most ri-diculous untruth in every word of it, nor would it beworth while to notice it here, except for its connexionwith the subject on which I am entering.

But the explanation of such reports about me iseasy. They arise from forgetfulness on the part ofthose who spread them, that there are two sides ofecclesiastical acts, that right ends are often prosecutedby very unworthy means, and that in consequence thosewho, like myself, oppose a mode of action, are not ne-cessarily opposed to the issue for which it has beenadopted. Jacob gained by wrong means his destinedblessing. " All are not Israelites, who are of Israel,"

Digitized by LiOOQIC

and there are partizans of Rome who have not thesanctity and wisdom of Rome herself.

I am not referring to anything which took placewithin the walls of the Council chambers; of that ofcourse we know nothing; but even though things oc-curred there which it is not pleasant to dwell upon, thatwould not at all affect, not by an hair's breadth, the va-lidity of the resulting definition, as I shall presentlyshow. What I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, whilelife lasts, is the violence and cruelty of journals andother publications, which, taking as they professed todo the Catholic side, employed themselves by theirrash language (though, of course, they did not mean itso), in unsettling the weak in faith, throwing back in-quirers, and shocking the Protestant mind. Nor do Ispeak of publications only ; a feeling was too prevalentin many places that no one could be true to God andHis Church, who had any pity on troubled souls, orany scruple of " scandalizing those little ones who be-lieve in " Christ, and of " despising and destroying himfor whom He died." ^

It was this most keen feeling which made mp say^as I did continually," I will not believe that the Pope'sInfallibility will be defined, till defined it is."

Moreover, a private letter of mine became publicproperty. That letter, to which Mr. Gladstone hasreferred with a compliment to me which I have notmerited, was one of the most confidential I ever wrotein my life. I wrote it to my own Bishop, under a deepsense of the responsibility I should incur, were I not tospeak out to him my whole mind. I put the matterfrom me when I had said my say, and kept no proper

Digitized by LiOOQIC

126 The Vatican Council:

copy of the letter. To my dismay I saw it in the pub-lic prints: to this day I do not know, nor suspect, howit got there. I cannot withdraw it, for I never put itforward, so it will remain on the columns of newspaperswhether I will or not; but I withdraw it as far as Ican, by declaring that it was never meant for the publiceye.

i. So much as to my posture of mind before theDefinition : now I will set down how I felt after it. OnJuly 24, 1870, I wrote as follows:

" I saw the new definition yesterday, and am pleasedat its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in questionis to be defined at all. The terms are vague and com-prehensive ; and, personally, I have no difficulty in ad-mitting it. The question is, does it come to me withthe authority of an Ecumenical Council ?

" Now the printd facie argument is in favour of itshaving that authority. The Council was legitimatelycalled ; it was more largely attended than any Councilbefore it; and innumerable prayers from the whole ofChristendom, have preceded and attended it, andmerited a happy issue of its proceedings.

" Were it not then for certain circumstances, underwhich the Council made the definition, I should re-ceive that definition at once. Even as it is, if I werecalled upon to profess it, I should be unable, consider-ing it came from the Holy Father and the competentlocal authorities, at once to refuse to do so. On theother hand, it cannot be denied that there are reasonsfor a Catholic, till better informed, to suspend his judg-ment on its validity.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

" We all know that ever since the opening of theCouncil, there has been a strenuous opposition to thedefinition of the doctrine ; and that, at the time whenit was actually passed, more than eighty Fathers ab-sented themselves from the Council, and would havenothing to do with its act. But, if the fact be so, thatthe Fathers were not unanimous, is the definitionvalid ? This depends on the question whether unani-mity, at least moral, is or is not necessary for itsvalidity ? As at present advised I think it is; certainlyPius IV. lays great stress on the unanimity of the Fa-thers in the Council of Trent. ' Quibus rebus perfectis,'he says in his Bull of Promulgation, ' concilium tantaomnium qui Mi interfuerunt concordia peractum fuit, utconsensum plane a Domino effectum esse constiterit;idque in nostris atque omnium oculis valdfe mirabilefuerit.'

" Far different has been the case now,—though theCouncil is not yet finished. But, if I must now atonce decide what to think of it, I should consider thatall turned on what the dissentient Bishops now do.

" If they separate and go home without acting as abody, if they act only individually > or as individuals,and each in his own way, then I should not recognizein their opposition to the majority that force, firmness,and unity of view, which creates a real case of wantof moral unanimity in the Council.

" Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dis-sentient Bishops more or less take part in it, and con-cur in its acts ; if there is a new Pope, and he con-tinues the policy of the present; and if the Councilterminates without any reversal or modification of the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

definition, or any effective movement against it on thepart of the dissentients, then again there will be goodreason for saying that the want of a moral unanimityhas not been made out.

" And further, if the definition is consistently re-ceived by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or asthe expression of a truth, then too it will claim ourassent by the force of the great dictum, ' Securus judi-cat orbis terrarum/

" This indeed is a broad principle by which all actsof the rulers of the Church are ratified. But for it, wemight reasonably question some of the past Councilsor their acts."

Also I wrote as follows to a friend, who was trou-bled at the way in which the dogma was passed, inorder to place before him in various points of view theduty of receiving it:—

"July 27, 1870.

411 have been thinking over the subject which justnow gives you and me with thousands of others, whocare for religion, so much concern.

" First, till better advised, nothing shall make mesay that a mere majority in a Council, as opposed to amoral unanimity, in itself creates an obligation to re-ceive its dogmatic decrees. This is a point of historyand precedent; and of course on further examinationI may find myself wrong in the view which I take ofhistory and precedent ; but I do not, cannot see, thata majority in the present Council can of itself rule itsown sufficiency, without such external testimony.

" But there are other means by which I can bebrought under the obligation of receiving a doctrine

Digitized by LiOOQIC

as a dogma. If I am clear that there is a primitiveand uninterrupted tradition, as of the divinity of ourLord; or where a high probability drawn from Scrip-ture or Tradition is partially or probably confirmedby the Church. Thus a particular Catholic might beso nearly sure that the promise to Peter in Scriptureproves that the infallibility of Peter is a necessary dog-ma, as only to be kept from holding it as such by theabsence of any judgment on the part of the Church, sothat the present unanimity of the Pope and 500Bishops, even though not sufficient to constitute a for-mal Synodal act, would at once put him in the posi-tion, and lay him under the obligation, of receivingthe doctrine as a dogma, that is, to receive it with itsanathema.

" Or again, if nothing definitely sufficient fromScripture or Tradition can be brought to contradict adefinition, the fact of a legitimate Superior having de-fined it, may be an obligation in conscience to receiveit with an internal assent. For myself, ever since Iwas a Catholic, I have held the Pope's infallibility as amatter of theological opinion ; at least, I see nothingin the Definition which necessarily contradicts Scrip-ture, Tradition, or History; and the 'Doctor Ec-clesiae,' (as the Pope is styled by the Council of Flor-ence) bids me accept it. In this case, I do not receiveit on the word of the Council, but on the Pope's self-assertion.

" And I confess, the fact that all along for so manycenturies the Head of the Church and Teacher of thefaithful and Vicar of Christ has been allowed by God

Digitized by LiOOQIC

to assert virtually his infallibility^ is a great argumentin favour of the validity of his claim.

" Another ground for receiving the dogma, still notupon the direct authority of the Council, or with ac-ceptance of the validity of its act per se, is the consi-deration that our Merciful Lord would not care solittle for His elect people, the multitude of the faith-ful, as to allow their visible Head, and such a largenumber *of Bishops to lead them into error, and an er-ror so serious, if an error. This consideration leads meto accept the doctrine as a dogma, indirectly indeedfrom the Council, but not so much from a Council, asfrom the Pope and a very large number of Bishops.The question is not whether they had a right to im-pose, or even were right in imposing the dogma on thefaithful; but whether, having done so, I have not anobligation to accept it, according to the maxim, ' Fierinon debuit, factum valet.' "

This letter, written before the minority had meltedaway, insists on this principle, that a Council's defini-tion would have a virtual claim on our reception, eventhough it were not passed conciliariter, but in someindirect way; as, for instance, to use a Parliamentaryexpression, in general committee, the great object of aCouncil being in some way or other to declare the judg-ment of the Church. I think the third Ecumenicalwill furnish 311 instance of what I mean. There thequestion in dispute w^s settled and defined, even be-fore certain constituent portions of the Episcopal bodyhad made their appearance, and thig, with a protest of68 of the Bishops then present against 83, When theremaining 43 arrived, these did more than protest

Digitized by LiOOQIC

against the definition which had been carried; they ac-tually anathematised the Fathers who carried it, whosenumber seems to have stood altogether at 124 againstin; and in this state of disunion the Council ended.How then was its definition valid ? By after events,which I suppose must be considered complements, andintegral portions of the Council. The heads of thevarious parties entered into correspondence with eachother, and at the end of two. years their differenceswith each other were arranged. There are those whohave no belief in the authority of Councils at all, andfeel no call upon them to discriminate between oneCouncil and another; but Anglicans, who are so fierceagainst the Vatican, and so respectful towards theEphesine, should consider what good reason they havefor swallowing the third Council, while they strain outthe nineteenth.

The Council of Ephesus furnishes us with anotherremark, bearing upon the Vatican. It was natural formen who were in the minority at Ephesus to thinkthat the faith of the Church had been brought intothe utmost peril by the Definition of the Coun-cil which they had unsuccessfully opposed. Theyhad done so from their conviction that that defini-tion gave great encouragement to religious errors in theopposite extreme to those which it condemned ; and infact, I think that, humanly speaking, the peril was ex-treme. The event proved it to be so, when twentyyears afterwards another Council was held under thesuccessors of the majority at Ephesus and carried tri-umphantly those very errors whose eventual successhad been predicted by the minority. But Providence

Digitized by LiOOQIC

is never wanting to His Church. St. Leo, the Pope ofthe day, interfered with this heretical Council, and theinnovating party was stopped in its career. Its actswere cancelled at the great Council of Chalcedon, theFourth Ecumenical, which was held under the Pope'sguidance, and, without of course touching the defini-tion of the Third, which had been settled once for all,trimmed the balance of doctrine by completing it, andexcluded for ever from the Church those errors whichseemed to have received some sanction at Ephesus.There is nothing of course that can be reversed in theVatican definitions; but, should the need arise (whichis not likely), to set right a false interpretation, anotherLeo will be given us for the occasion ; " in monfe Do-minus videbit."

In this remark, made for the benefit of those whoneed it, as I do not myself, I shelter myself under thefollowing passage of Molina, which a friend has pointedout to me:—" Though the Holy Ghost has alwaysbeen present to the Church, to hinder error in her de-finitions, and in consequence they are all most true andconsistent, yet it is not therefore to be denied, thatGod, when any matters have to be defined, requires ofthe Church a co-operation and investigation of thosematters, and that, in proportion to the quality of themen who meet together in Councils, to the investiga-tion and diligence which is applied, and the greater orless experience and knowledge which is possessed moreat one time than at other times, definitions more orless perspicuous are drawn up and matters are definedmore exactly and completely at one time than at othertimes. . . . And, whereas by disputations, perse-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

vering reading, meditation, and investigation of mat-ters, there is wont to be increased in course of time theknowledge and understanding of the same, and theFathers of the later Councils are assisted by the in-vestigation and definitions of the former, hence itarises that the definitions of later Councils are wont tobe more luminous, fuller, more accurate and exact thanthose of the earlier. Moreover, it belongs to the laterCouncils to interpret and to define more exactly andfully what in earlier Councils have been defined lessclearly, fully, and exactly/' (De Concord. Lib. Arbit.,etc., xiii. 15, p. 59.)

2. The other main objection to the Vatican Councilis founded upon its supposed neglect of history in thedecision which its Definition embodies. This objec-tion is touched upon by Mr. Gladstone in the beginningof his Pamphlet, where he speaks of its " repudiationof ancient history," and I have an opportunity givenme of noticing it here.

He asserts that, during the last forty years, " moreand more have the assertions of continuous uniformity■of doctrine " in the Catholic Church " receded intoscarcely penetrable shadow. More and more haveanother series of assertions, of a living authority, everready to open, adopt, and shape Christian doctrineaccording to the times, taken their place." Accordingly,he considers that a dangerous opening has been madein the authoritative teaching of the Church for the re-pudiation of anrient truth and the rejection of new.However, as I understand him, he withdraws thischarge from the controversy he has initiated (thoughnot from his Pamphlet) as far as it is aimed at the pure

Digitized by LiOOQIC

134 The Vatican Councit.

theology of the Church. It " belongs/* he says, " tothe theological domain," and " is a matter unfit forhim to discuss, as it is a question of divinity." It hasbeen, then, no duty of mine to consider it, except as itrelates to matters ecclesiastical; but I am unwilling,when a charge has been made against our theology,though unsupported, yet unretracted, to leave it alto-gether without reply; and that the more, because,after renouncing " questions of divinity" at p. 14,nevertheless Mr. Gladstone brings them forward againat p. 15, speaking, as he does, of the " deadly blowsof 1854 and 1870 at the old, historic, scientific, andmoderate school " by the definitions of the ImmaculateConception and Papal Infallibility.

Mr. Gladstone then insists on the duty of " main-taining the truth and authority of history, and the in-estimable value of the historic spirit;" and so far ofcourse I have the pleasure of heartily agreeing withhim. As the Church is a sacred and divine creation, *so in like manner her history, with its wonderful evolu-tion of events, the throng of great actors who ljave apart in it, and its multiform literature, stained thoughits annals are with human sin and error, and recordedon no system, and by uninspired authors, still is asacred work also; and those who make light of it, ordistrust its lessons, incur a grave responsibility. Butit is not every one who can read its pages rightly; andcertainly I cannot follow Mr. Gladstone's reading of it.He is too well informed indeed, too large in his know-ledge, too acute and comprehensive in his views, not tohave an acquaintance with history far beyond the runof even highly educated men ; still, when he accuses us

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Vatican Co7incil. 13-5

of deficient attention to history, one cannot help ask-ing, whether he does not, as a matter of course, takefor granted as true the principles for using it familiarwith Protestant divines, and denied by our own, andin consequence whether his impeachment of us doesnot resolve itself into the fact that he is Protestantand we are Catholics. Nay, has it occurred to himthat perhaps it is the fact, that we have views on therelation of History to Dogma different from thosewhich Protestants maintain ? And is he so certain ofthe facts of History in detail, of their relevancy, and oftheir drift, as to have a right, I do not say to have anopinion of his own, but to publish to the world, on hisown warrant, that we have " repudiated ancient his-tory?" He publicly charges us, not merely with hav-ing " neglected " itf or " garbled " its evidence, or withhaving contradicted certain ancient usages or doctrinesto which it bears witness, but he says " repudiated."He could not have used a stronger term, supposing theVatican Council had, by a formal act, cut itself off fromearly times, instead of professing, as it does (hypocriti-cally, if you will, but still professing) to speak " sup-ported by Holy Scripture and the decrees both of pre-ceding Popes and General Councils," and " faithfullyadhering to the aboriginal tradition of the Church."Ought any one but an oculatus testis, a man whose pro-fession was to acquaint himself with the details of his-tory, to claim to himself the right of bringing, on hisown authority, so extreme a charge against so augusta power, so inflexible and rooted in its traditionsthrough the long past, as Mr. Gladstone would admitthe Roman Church to be ?

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Of course I shall be reminded that, though Mr.Gladstone cannot be expected to speak on so large adepartment of knowledge with the confidence decorousin one who has made a personal study of it, there areothers who have a right to do so; and that by thoseothers he is corroborated and sanctioned. There areauthors, it may be said, of so commanding an authorityfrom their learning and their honesty, that, for the pur-pose of discussion or of controversy, what they say maybe said by any one else without presumption or risk ofconfutation. I will never say a word of my own againstthose learned and distinguished men to whom I refer.No: their present whereabout, wherever it is, is to mea thought full of melancholy. It is a tragical event,both for them and for us, that they have left us. Itrobs us of a great prestige : they have left none to taketheir place. I think them utterly wrong in what theyhave done and are doing; and, moreover, I agree aslittle in their view of history as in their acts. Exten-sive as may be their historical knowledge, I have noreason to think that they, more than Mr. Gladstone,would accept the position which History holds amongthe Loci Theologici, as Catholic theologians determineit; and I am denying not their report of facts, but theiruse of the facts they report, and that, because of thatspecial stand-point from which they view the relationsexisting between the records of History and the enun-ciations of Popes and Councils. They seem to me toexpect from History more than History can furnish,and to have too little confidence in the Divine Promiseand Providence as guiding and determining thoseenunciations.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Why should Ecclesiastical History, any more thanthe text of Scripture, contain in it " the whole counselof God ?" Why should private judgment be unlawfulin interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority,and yet be lawful in the interpretation of History?There are those who make short work of questions suchas these by denying authoritative interpretation alto-gether ; that is their private concern, and no ofie has aright to inquire into their reason for so doing ;, but thecase would be different were such a man to come for-ward publicly, and to arraign others, without first con-futing their theological prceatnbula, for repudiating his-tory, or for repudiating the Bible.

For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrineof the Church can be rigorously proved by historicalevidence ; but at the same time that no doctrine canbe simply disproved by it. Historical evidence reachesa certain way, more or less, towards a proof of-theCatholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way; some-times it goes only so far as to point in their direction ;sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for aconclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there isan apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary con-clusion, which has to be explained ;—in all cases thereis a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word ofthe Church. He who believes the dogmas of theChurch only because he has reasoned them out of His-tory, is scarcely a Catholic. It is the Church's use ofHistory in which"the Catholic believes; and she usesother informants also, Scripture, Tradition, the ecclesi-astical sense, or cppovrfjxa, and a subtle ratiocinative pow-er, which in its origin is a divine gift. There is nothing

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of bondage or " renunciation of mental freedom " inthis view, any more than in the converts of the Apos-tles believing what the Apostles might preach to themor teach them out of Scripture.

What has been said of History in relation to theformal Definitions of the Church, applies also to theexercises of Ratiocination. Our logical powers, too,being a gift from God, may claim to have their infor-mations respected ; and Protestants sometimes accuseour theologians, for instance, the medieval schoolmen,of having used them in divine matters a little too free-ly. But it has ever been our teaching and our protestthat, as there are doctrines which lie beyond the directevidence of history, so there are doctrines which tran-scend the discoveries of reason; and, after all, whetherthey are more or less recommended to us by the oneinformant or the other, in all cases the immediate mo-tive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of themis, not that they are proved to him by Reason or byHistory, but because Revelation has declared them bymeans of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium, which istheir legitimate exponent.

What has been said also applies to those othertruths, with which Ratiocination has more to do thanHistory, which are sometimes called developments ofChristian doctrine, truths which are not upon the sur-face of the Apostolic depositum—that is, the legacy ofRevelation,—but which from time to time are broughtinto form by Theologians, and sometimes have beenproposed to the faithful by the Church, as direct ob-jects of faith. No Catholic would hold that they oughtto be logically deduced in their fulness and exactness

Digitized by LiOOQIC

from the belief of the first centuries, bpt only this,—that, on the assumption of the Infallibility of the Church(which will overcome every objection except a contra-diction in thought), ther^ is nothing greatly to try thereason in such difficulties as occur in reconciling thoseevolved doctrines with the teaching of the ancient Fa-thers ; such development being evidently the new form,explanation, transformation, or carrying out of what insubstance was held from the first, what the Apostlessaid, but have not recorded in writing, or would neces-sarily have said under our circumstances, or if they hadbeen asked, or in view of certain uprisings of error, andin that sense really portions of the legacy of truth, ofwhich the Church, in all her members, but especially inher hierarchy, is the divinely appointed trustee.

Such an evolution of doctrine has been, as I wouldmaintain, a law of the Church's teaching from theearliest times, and in nothing is her title of " sempereadem " more remarkably illustrated than in the^cor-respondence of her ancient and modern exhibition ofit. As to the' ecclesiastical Acts of 1854 and 1870,I think with Mr. Gladstone that the principle ofdoctrinal development, and that of authority,have never in the proceedings of the Churchbeen so freely and largely used as in the Definitionsthen promulgated to the faithful; but I deny that ateither time the testimony of history was repudiated orperverted. The utmost that can be fairly said by anopponent against the theological decisions of thoseyears is, that antecedently to the event, it might ap-pear that there were no sufficient historical grounds inbehalf of either of them—I do not mean for a perso-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

140 The Vatican Council.

nal belief in either, but—for the purpose of converting,a doctrine long existing in the Church into a dogma,and making it a portion of the Catholic Creed. Thisadverse anticipation was proved to be a mistake by thefact of the definition being made.

3. Here I will say just a few words on the case ofPope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema inthe 6th Ecumenical Council, is certainly a strongprimdfacie argument against the Pope's doctrinal infallibility.His case is this :—Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople,favoured, or rather did not condemn, a doctrine con-cerning our Lord's Person which afterwards the sixthCouncil pronounced to be heresy. He consulted PopeHonorius upon the subject, who in two formal lettersdeclared his entire concurrence with Sergius's opinion.Honorius died in peace, but, more than forty yearsafter him, the 6th Ecumenical Council was held, whichcondemned him as a heretic on thq score of those twoletters. The simple question is, whether the hereticaldocuments proceeded from him as an infallible autho-rity or as a private Bishop.

Now I observe that whereas the Vatican Council hasdetermined that the Pope is infallible only when hespeaks ex cathedrd, and that, in order to speak excathedrd, he must at least speak " as exercising theoffice of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, defining,by virtue of his Apostolical authority, a doctrine whe-ther of faith or of morals for the acceptance of the uni-versal Church " (though Mr. Gladstone strangely says,p. 34, " There is no established or accepted definitionof the phrase ex cathedrd "), from this Pontifical anddogmatic explanation of the phrase it follows, that,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

The Vatican CottnciL 141

whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, andwhatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrd, andtherefore did not proceed from his infallibility.

I say so first, because, he could not fulfil the aboveconditions of an ex cathedrd utterance, if he did notactually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlikethe question about the Sacraments ; external and posi-tive acts, whether material actions or formal words,speak for themselves. Teaching on the other handhas no sacramental visible signs ; it is mainly a ques-tion of intention. Who would say that the architri-clinus at the wedding feast who said, " Thou hast keptthe good wine until now," was teaching the Christianworld, though the words have a great ethical and evan-gelical sense ? What is the worth of a signature, ifa man does not consider he is signing ? The Pope can-not address his people East and West, North andSouth, without meaning it, as if his very voice, thesounds from his lips, could literally be heard from poleto pole ; nor can he exert his " Apostolical authority "without knowing he is doing so ; nor can he draw up aform of words and use care and make an effort in doingso accurately, without intention to do so ; and, there-fore, no words of Honorius proceeded from his prero-gative of infallible teaching, which were not accom-panied with the intention of exercising that preroga-tive; and^who will dream of saying, be he Anglican,Protestant, unbeliever, or on the other hand Catholic,that Honorius in the 7th century did actually intendto exert that infallible teaching voice which has beendogmatically recognized in the nineteenth ?

What resemblance do these letters of his, written

Digitized by LiOOQIC

almost as private instructions, bear to the " Pius Epis-copus, Servus Servorum Dei, Sacro approbante Con-cilio, ad perpetuam rei mcmoriam" with the " Si quishuic nostrae definitioni contradicere (quod Deus aver-tat), praesumpserit anathema sit" of the Pastor jEter-nus? What to the " Venerabilibus fratribus, Patri-archis, primatibus, Archiepiscopis, et Episcopis univer-sis" etc., and with the date and signature, " DatumRomae apud Sanctum Petrum, Die 8 Dec. anno 1864,etc. Pius P.P. IX." of the Quantd curd?

Secondly, it is no part of our doctrine, as I shall say-in my next section, that the discussions previousto a Council's definition, or to an ex cathedrd utter-ance of a Pope, are infallible, and these letters ofHonorius on their very face are nothing more thanportions of a discussion with a view to some final de-cision.

For these two reasons the condemnation of Hono-rius by the Council in no sense compromises the doc-trine of Papal Infallibility. At the utmost, it only de-cides that Honorius in his own person was a heretic,which is inconsistent with no Catholic doctrine; but wemay rather hope and believe that the anathema fell,not upon him, but upon his letters in their objectivesense, he not intending personally what his letterslegitimately expressed.

4. I have one more remark to make upon the argu-mentative method by which the Vatican Council wascarried on to its definition. The Pastor Ait ernus refersto various witnesses as contributing their evidence to-wards the determination of the contents of the de-positum, such as Tradition, the Fathers and Councils,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

History, and especially Scripture. For instance, theBull speaks of the Gospel ("juxta Evangelii testi-monial c. 1) and of Scripture (" manifesta S.S. Scrip-turarum doctrina, c. 1: " apertis S.S. Literarum testi-moniis,,, c. 3. " S.S. Scripturis consentanea," c. 4).And it lays an especial stress on three passages ofScripture in particular—viz., " Thou art Peter," etc.,Matthew xvi., 16-19: "I have prayed for thee," etc.,Luke xxii., 32, and " Feed My sheep," etc., John xxi.,15-17. Now I wish all objectors to our method ofreasoning from Scripture would view it in the light ofthe following passage in the great philosophical workof Butler, Bishop of Durham.

He writes as follows—"As it is owned the wholescheme of Scripture is not yet understood, so, if itever comes to be understood, before the ' restitutionof all things,' and without miraculous inteVpositions, itmust be in the same way as natural knowledge is comeat, by the continuance and progress of learning and ofliberty, and by particuler persons attending to, com-paring, and pursuing intimations scattered up anddown it, which are overlooked, and disregarded by thegenerality of the world. For this is the way in whichall improvements are made by thoughtful men tracingon obscure hints, as it were, dropped us by nature ac-cidentally, or which seem to come into our minds bychance. Nor is it at all incredible that a book, whichhas been so long in the possession of mankind, shouldcontain many truths as yet undiscovered. For all thesame phenomena, and the same faculties of investiga-tion, from which such great discoveries in naturalknowledge have been made in the present and last

Digitized by LiOOQIC

144 The Vatican Council.

age, were equally in the possession of mankind severalthousand years before. And possibly it might be in-tended that events, as they come to pass, should openand ascertain the meaning of several parts of Scripture,"ii. 3, vide also ii. 4, fin.

What has the long history of the contest for andagainst the Pope's infallibility been, but a growing in-sight through centuries into the meaning of those threetexts, to which I just now referred, ending at lengthby the Church's definitive recognition of the doctrinethus gradually manifested to her?

Digitized

by Google

Now I am to speak.of the Vatican definition, bywhich the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility has be-come de fide, that is, a truth necessary to be believed,as being included in the original divine revelation, forthose terms, revelation, deposition, dogma, and de fide,are correlatives ; and I begin with a remark which sug-gests the drift of all I have to say about it. It is this :—that so difficult a virtue is faith, even with the spe-cial grace of God, in proportion as the reason is exer-cised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly to proposi-tions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience,but depending for their reception on the word of theChurch as God's oracle, that she has ever shown theutmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range oftruths and the sense of propositions, of which she de-mands this absolute reception. " The Church," saysPallavicini, " as far as may be, has ever abstained fromimposing upon the minds of men that commandment,the most arduous of the Christian Law—viz., to be-lieve obscure matters without doubting."* To co-operate in this charitable duty has been one specialwork of her theologians, and rules are laid down byherself, by tradition, and by custom, to assist them k\the task. She only speaks when it is necessary tospeak; but hardly has she spoken out magisterially

* Quoted by Father Ryder, (to whom I am indebted for other ofmy references,) in his " Idealism in Theology," p. 25.

l45

Digitized by LiOOQIC

some great general principle, when she sets her theolo-gians to work to explain her meaning in the concrete,by strict interpretation of its wording, by the illustra-tion of its circumstances, and by the recognition ofexceptions, in order to make it as tolerable as possible,and the least of a temptation, to self-willed, indepen-dent, or wrongly educated minds. A few years ago itwas the fashion among us to call writers, who con-formed to this rule cf the Church, by the name of44 Minimizers; " that day of tyrannous ipsedixits, Itrust, is over: Bishop Fessler, a man of high author-ity, for he was Secretary General of the Vatican Coun-cil, and of higher authority still in his work, for it hasthe approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff, clearly provesto us that a moderation of doctrine, dictated bycharity, is not inconsistent with soundness in the faith.Such a sanction, I suppose, will be considered sufficientfor the character of the remarks which I am about tomake upon definitions in general, and upon the Vati-can in particular.

The Vatican definition, which comes to us in theshape of the Pope's Encyclical Bull called the PastorjEternus, declares that " the Pope has that same infal-libility which the Church has: "* to determine there-fore what is meant by the infallibility of the Pope wemust turn first to consider the infallibility of theChurch. And again, to determine the character ofthe Church's infallibility, we must consider what is the

* Romanum Pontificem ea infallibilitatc pollere, qui divlnus Re-demptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina dc fide vcl moribusinstructam esse voluit.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

characteristic of Christianity, considered as a revela-tion of God's will.

Our Divine Master might have communicated tous heavenly truths without telling us that they camefrom Him, as it is commonly thought He has done inthe case of heathen nations; but He willed the Gospelto be a revelation acknowledged and authenticated, tobe public, fixed, and permanent; and, accordingly, asCatholics hold, He framed a Society of men to be itshome, its instrument, and its guarantee. The rulers ofthat Association are the legal trustees, so to say, of thesacred truths which he spoke to the Apostles by wordor mouth. As he was leaving them, He gave themtheir great commission, and bade them " teach " theirconverts all over the earth, " to observe all thingswhatever He had commanded them ;" and then Headded, " Lo, I am with you always, even to the endof the world/'

Here, first, He told them to " teach " His revealedTruth; next, " to the consummation of all things;"thirdly, for their encouragement, He said that Hewould be with them " all days," all along, on everyemergency or occasion, until that consummation. Theyhad a duty put upon them of teaching their Master swords, a duty which they could not fulfil in the perfec-tion which fidelity required, without His help ; there-fore came His promise to be with them in their per-formance of it. Nor did that promise of supernaturalhelp end with the Apostles personally, for He adds," to the consummation of the world," implying that theApostles would have successors, and engaging that He

Digitized by LiOOQIC

would be with those successors as He had been withthem.

The same safeguard of the Revelation—viz., anauthoritative, permanent tradition of teaching is insist-ed on by an informant of equal authority with St.Matthew, but altogether independent of him, I meanSt. Paul. He calls the Church " the pillar and groundof the Truth ; " and he bids his convert Timothy, whenhe had become a ruler in that Church, to " take heedunto his doctrine," to " keep the deposit " of the faith,and to " commit" the things which he Had heard fromhimself" to faithful men who should be fit to teachothers."

This is how Catholics understand the Scripturerecord, nor does it appear how it can otherwise be un-derstood ; but, when we have got as far as this, andlook back, we find that we have by implication madeprofession of a further doctrine. For, if the Church,initiated by the Apostles and continued in their suc-cessors, has been set up for the direct object of pro-tecting, preserving, and declaring the Revelation, andthat by means of the Guardianship and Providence ofits Divine Author, we are led on to perceive that, inasserting this, we are in other words asserting, that, sofar as the revealed message is concerned, the Church isinfallible; for what is meant by infallibility in teachingbut that the teacher in his teaching is secured fromerror? and how can fallible man be thus secured ex-cept by a supernatural infallible guidance ? And whatcan have been the object of the words, " I am with-youall along to the end/* but to give thereby an answer byanticipation to the spontaneous, silent alarm of the fee-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

The Vatican Definition. 149

ble company of fishermen and labourers, to whom theywere addressed, on their finding themselves laden withsuperhuman duties and responsibilities ?

Such then being, in its simple outline, the infallibili-ty of the Church, such too will be the Pope's infallibili-ty, as the Vatican Fathers have defined it. And if wefind that by means of this outline we are able to fill outin all important respects the idea of a Council's infalli-bility, we shall thereby be ascertaining in detail whathas been defined in 1870 about the infallibility of thePope. With an attempt to do this I shall conclude.

1. The Church has the office of teaching, and thematter of that teaching is the body of doctrine, whichthe Apostles left behind them as her perpetual posses-sion. If a question arises as to what the Apostolic doc-trine is on a particular point, she has infallibility pro-mised to her to enable her to answer correctly. And,as by the teaching of the Church is understood, not theteaching of this or that Bishop, but their united voice,and a Council is the form the Church must take, in or-der that all men may recognize that in fact she is teach-ing on any point in dispute, so in like manner the Popemust come before us in some special form or posture,if he is to be understood to be exercising his teachingoffice, and that form is called ex cathedrd. This termis most appropriate, as being on one occasion used byour Lord Himself. When the Jewish doctors taught,they placed themselves in Moses* seat, and spoke excathedrd; and then, as He tells us, they were to beobeyed by their people, and that, whatever were theirprivate lives or characters. " The Scribes and Phari-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

150 The Vatican Definitioft^

sees," He says, " are seated on the chair of Moses : allthings therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, ob-serve and do ; but according to their works do you not,for they say and do not."

2. The forms by which a General Council is identi-fied as representing the Church herself, are too clear toneed drawing out; but what is to be that moralcathedra, or teaching chair, in which the Pope sits,when he is to be recognized as in the exercise of hisinfallible teaching? The new definition answers thisquestion. He speaks ex cathedrd, or infallibly, whenhe speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher-; secondly,in the name and with the authority of the Apostles;thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, withthe purpose of binding every member of the Church toaccept and believe his decision.

3. These conditions of course contract the range ofhis infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speak-ing of the Pope says, " Neither in conversation, nor indiscussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fa-thers, nor in consulting, nor in giving his reasons forthe point which he has defined, nor in answering let-ters, nor in private deliberations, supposing he is settingforth his own opinion, is the Pope infallible," t. ii. p.no.* And for this simple reason, because, on thesevarious occasions of speaking his mind, he is not in thechair of the universal doctor.

4. Nor is this all; the greater part of Billuart's

* And so Fessier: " The Pope is not infallible as a man, or atheologian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a judge,or a legislator, or in his political views, or even in his governmentof die Church."—Introd.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

negatives refer to the Pope's utterances when he is outof the Cat/iedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, hiswords do not necessarily proceed from his infallibility.He has no wider prerogative than a Council, and of aCouncil Perrone says, " Councils are not infallible inthe reasons by which they are led, or on which theyrely, in making their definition, nor in matters whichrelate to persons, nor to physical matters which haveno necessary connexion with dogma."—Prat. Theol. t.ii. p. 492. Thus, if a Council has condemned a workof Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemninggo beyond the work itself; it did not touch the per-sons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it alsoholds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing aPope has quoted the so-called works of the Areopagiteas if really genuine, there is no call on us to believehim; nor again, when he condemned Galileo's Coper-nicanism, unless the earth's immobility has a " neces-sary connection with some dogmatic truth," which thepresent bearing of the Holy See towards that philo-sophy virtually denies..

5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefacesand introductions to its definitions. There are theolo-gians of name, as Tournely and Amort,* who contendthat even those most instructive capitula passed in theTridentine Council, from which the Canons with ana-themas are drawn up, are not portions of the Church'sinfallible teaching; and the parallel introductions pre-fixed to the Vatican anathemas have an authority notgreater nor less than that of those capitula.

* Vid. Amort. Dcm. Or., pp. 205-6. This applies to the UnamSanctara. Vid. Fessler.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

6. Such passages, however, as these are too closelyconnected with the definitions themselves, not to bewhat is sometimes called, by a catachresis, " proximumfidei " ; still, on the other hand, it is true also that, inthose circumstances and surroundings of formal defini-tions, which I have been speaking of, whether of aCouncil or a Pope, there may be not only no exerciseof-an infallible voice, but actual error. Thus, in theThird Council, a passage of an heretical author wasquoted in defence of the doctrine defined, under thebelief he was Pope Julius, and narratives not trustwor-thy, are introduced into the Seventh.

This remark and several before it will become in-telligible if we consider that neither Pope nor Councilare on a level with the Apostles. To the Apostles thewhole revelation was given, by the Church it is trans-mitted ; no simply new truth has been given to ussince St. John's death; the one office of the Church isto guard u that noble deposit" of truth, as St. Paulspeaks to Timothy, which the Apostles bequeathed toher, in its fulness and integrity. Hence the infallibi-lity of the Apostles was of a far more positive and widecharacter than that needed by and granted to theChurch. We call it, in the case of the Apostles,inspiration ; in the case of the Church assistentia.

Of course there is a sense of the word " inspiration "in which it is common to all members of the Church,and therefore especially to its Bishops, and still moredirectly to its rulers, when solemnly called together inCouncil after much prayer throughout Christendom,and in a frame of mind especially serious and earnestby reason of the work they have in hand. The Para-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

clete certainly is ever with them, and more effectivelyin a Council, as being " in Spiritu Sancto congregata;"but I speak of the special and promised aid necessaryfor their fidelity to apostolic teaching ; and, in order tosecure this fidelity, no inward gift of infallibility isneeded, such as the Apostles had, no direct suggestionof divine truth, but simply an external guardianship,keeping them off from error (as a man's Guardian An-gel, without enabling him to walk, might, on a nightjourney, keep him from pitfalls in his way), a guardian-ship saving them, as far as their ultimate decisions areconcerned, from the effects of their inherent infirmities,from any chance of extravagance, of confusion ofthought, of collision with former decisions, or with Scrip-ture, which in seasons of excitement might reasonably• be feared. '

" Never," says Perrone, "have Catholics taughtthat the gift of infallibility is given by God to theChurch after the manner of inspiration.'*—t. 2, p. 253.Again: " [Human] media of arriving at the truth areexcluded neither by a Council's nor by a Pope's infal-libility, for God has promised it, not by way of an in-fused " or habitual " gift, but by the way of assisfen-tia"—ibid. p. 541.

But since the process of defining truth is human, itis open to the chance of error; what Providence hasguaranteed is only this, that there should be no errorin the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that thePope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the spe-cial question which he happens to be considering;his prerogative does not extend beyond a power,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

when in his Cathedra, of giving that very answertruly, * " Nothing," says Perrone, " but the objects ofdogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for inthese are Councils infallible, not in their reasons" etc.—ibid.

8. This rule is so strictly to be observed that,though dogmatic statements are found from time totime in a Pope's Apostolic Letters, etc., yet they arenot accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if theyare said only obiter—by the way, and without directintention to define. A striking instance of this sine quanon condition is afforded by Nicholas L, who, in a let-ter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid,when administered simply in our Lord's Name, withoutdistinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is notteaching and speaking ex cathedrd9 because no questionon this matter was in any sense the occasion of hiswriting. The question asked of him was concerningthe minister of baptism—viz., whether a Jew or Pagancould validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative,he added obiter, as a private doctor, says Bellarmine," that the baptism was valid, whether administered inthe name of the three -Persons or in the name of Christonly." (de Rom. Pont., iv. 12.)

9. Another limitation is given in Pope Pius's ownconditions set down in the Pastor AZtcmus, for the ex-ercise of infallibility : viz., the proposition defined willbe without any claim to be considered binding on thebelief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Aposto-lic depositum, through the channel either of Scriptureor Tradition; and, though the Pope is the judgewhether it is so referable or not, yet the necessity of

Digitized by LiOOQIC

his professing to abide by this reference is in itself acertain limitation of his dogmatic action. A Protestantwill object indeed that, after his distinctly asserting thatthe Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibilityare in Scripture and Tradition, this safeguard againsterroneous definitions is not worth much, nor do I saythat it is one of the most effective ; but anyhow, inconsequence of it, no Pope any more than a Council,could, for instance, introduce Ignatius's Epistles intothe Canon of Scripture;—and as to his dogmatic con-demnation of particular books, which, of course, are for-eign to the depositum, I would say, that, as to their falsedoctrine there can be no difficulty in condemning thatby means of that Apostolic deposit; nor surely in his con-demning the very wording, in which they convey it, whenthe subject is carefully considered. For the Pope'scondemning the language, for instance, of Janseniusis a parallel act to the Church's receiving the word" Consubstantial," and if a Council and the Pope werenot infallible so far in their judgment of language, nei-ther the Pope nor Council could draw up a dogmaticdefinition at all, for the right exercise of words is in-volved in the right exercise of thought.

IO. And in like manner, as regards the preceptsconcerning moral duties, it is not in every such preceptthat the Pope is infallible. As a definition of faithmust be drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doc-trine, in order that it may be considered an exercise f>finfallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, sq too 3precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as dogmatic,'must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary reve-lation to us from God.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

That is, in the first place, it must relate to thingsin themselves good or evil. If the Pope prescribedlying or revenge, his command would,simply go fornothing, as if he had not issued it, because he has nopower over the Moral Law. If he forbade his flock toeat any but vegetable food, or to dress in a particularfashion (questions of decency or modesty not cominginto the question), he would in like manner be goingbeyond his province, because such a rule does not re-late to a matter in itself good or bad. If he gave aprecept all over the world for the adoption of lotteriesinstead of tithes or offerings, certainly it would be veryhard to prove that he. was contradicting the MoralLaw, or ruling a practice to be in itself good which wasin itself evil. There are few persons but would allowthat it is at least doubtful whether lotteries are ab-stractedly evil, and in a doubtful matter the Pope is tobe. believed and obeyed.

However, there are other conditions besides this,necessary for the exercise of Papal infallibility inmoral subjects:—for instance, his definition mustrelate to things necessary for salvation. No onewould so speak of lotteries, nor of a particular dress,or of a particular kind of food ;—such precepts, then,did he make them, would be simply external to therange of his prerogative.

And again, his infallibility in consequence is notcalled into exercise, unless he speaks to the wholeworld; for, if his precepts, in order to be dogmatic,must enjoin what is necessary to salvation, they mustbe necessary for all men. Accordingly orders whichissue Trom him for the observance of particular coun-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

#

tries, or political or religious classes, have no claim tobe the utterances of his infallibility. If he enjoins upqnthe hierarchy of Ireland to withstand mixed education,this is no exercise of his infallibility.

It may be added that the field of morals containsso little that is unknown and unexplored, in contrastwith revelation and doctrinal fact, which form the do-main of faith, that it is difficult to say what portionsof moral teaching in the course of 1800 years actuallyhave proceeded from the Pope, or from the Church, orwhere to look for such. Nearly all that either oraclehas done in this respect, has been to condemn suchpropositions as in a moral point of view are false, ordangerous, or rash; and these condemnations, besidesbeing such as in fact, will be found to command theassent of most men, as soon as heard, do not necessa-rily go so far as to present any positive statements foruniversal acceptance.

11. With the mention of condemned propositions Iam brought to another and large consideration, whichis one of the best illustrations that I can give of thatprinciple of minimizing so necessary, as I think, for awise and cautious theology ; at the same time I cannotinsist upon it in the connexion into which I am goingto introduce it, without submitting myself to the cor-rection of divines more learned than I can pretend tobe myself.

The infallibility, whether of the Church or of thePope, acts principally or solely-in two channels, indirect statements of truth, and in the condemnation oferror. The former takes the shape of doctrinal defini-tions, the latter stigmatizes propositions as heretical,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

next to heresy, erroneous, and the like. In each casethe Church, as guided by her Divine Master, has madeprovision for weighing as lightly as possible on thefaith and conscience of her children.

As to the condemnation of propositions all shetells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as awhole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is hereti-cal, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever otherepithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her sofar as to allow ourselves to be warned against the the-sis, or the. work containing it. Theologians employthemselves in determining what precisely it is that iscondemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless inmost cases they do so with success; but that determi-nation is not de fide; all that is of faith is that thereis in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error,or other peccant matter, as the case may be, such, thatthe censure is a peremptory command to theologians,preachers, students, and all other whom it concerns, tokeep clear of it. But so light is this obligation, thatinstances frequently occur, when it is successfullymaintained by some new writer, that the Pope's actdoes not imply what it has seemed to imply, and ques-tions which seemed to be closed, are after a course ofyears re-opened. In discussions such as these, there isa real exercise of private judgment, and an allowableone; the act of faith, which cannot be supersededor trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved accept-ance that the thesis" in question is heretical, or erro-neous in faith, etc., as the Pope or the Church hasspoken of it.

In these cases, which in a true sense May be called

Digitized by LiOOQIC

the Pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of alegitimate minimizing lies in the intensely concretecharacter of the matters condemned; in his affirmativeenunciations a like opportunity is afforded by theirbeing more or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such asrelate to persons, that is, to the Trinity in Unity, theBlessed Virgin, the Saints, and the like, all the dogmasof Pope or of Council are but general, and so far, inconsequence, admit of exceptions in their actual ap-plication,—these exceptions being determined eitherby other authoritative utterances, or by the scrutiniz-ing vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the ScholaTheologorum.

One of the most remarkable instances of what Iam insisting on is found rn a dogma, which no Catholiccan ever think of disputing, viz., that " Out of theChurch, and out of the faith, is no salvation." Not togo to Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St.Irenaeus, St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as ofSt. Augustine and his contemporaries in the fourthand fifth. It can never be other than an elementarytruth of Christianity; and the present Pope has pro-claimed it as all Popes, doctors, and bishops beforehim. But that truth has two aspects, according as theforce of the negative falls upon the " Church " or uponthe " salvation." The main sense is, that there is noother communion or so-called Church, but the Catho-lic, in which are stored the promises, the sacraments, andother means of salvation ; the other and derived senseis, that no one can be saved who is not in that one andonly Church. But it does not follow, because there isno Church but one which has the Evangelical gifts

Digitized by LiOOQIC

and privileges to bestow, that therefore no one can besaved without the intervention of that one Church.Anglicans quite understand this distinction; for, onthe one hand, their Article says, " They are to be hadaccursed (anathematizandi) that presume to say, thatevery man shall be saved by (in) the law or sect whichhe professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his lifeaccording to that law and the light of nature ; " whileon the other hand they speak of and hold the doctrineof the " uncovenanted mercies of God." The latterdoctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of invin-cible ignorance—or, that it is possible to belong tothe soul of the Church without belonging to thebody; and, at the end of 1,800 years, it has been for-mally and authoritatively put forward by the presentPope (the first Pope, I suppose, who has done so), onthe very same occasion on which he has repeated thefundamental principle of exclusive salvation itself. Itis to the purpose here to quote his words; they occurin the course of his Encyclical, addressed to the Bish-ops of Italy, under date of August io, 1863 :

" We and you know, that those who lie under invin-cible ignorance as regards our most Holy Religion, andwho, diligently observing the natural law, and its pre-cepts, which are engraven by God on the hearts of all,and prepared to obey God, lead a good and uprightlife, are able, by the operation of the power of divinelight and grace, to obtain eternal life." *

* The Pope speaks more forcibly still in an earlier Allocution.After mentioning invincible ignorance, he adds:—" Quis tantum sibiarroget, ut hujusmodi ignorantix designare limites queat, juxta popu-lorum, regionum, ingeniorum, aliarumque rerum tarn multarum ratio-nem et varietatem ? "—Dec. 9, 1854.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Who would at first sight gather from the wordingof so forcible a universal, that an exception to its ope-ration, such as this, so distinct, and, for what we know,so very wide, was consistent with holding it ?

Another instance of a similar kind is the generalacceptance in the Latin Church, since the time of St.Augustine, of the doctrine of absolute predestination,as instanced in the teaching of other great saints besidehim, such as St. Fulgentius, St. Prosper, St. Gregory ^St. Thomas, and St. Buonaventure. Yet in the lastcenturies a great explanation and modification of thisdoctrine has been effected by the efforts of the JesuitSchool, which have issued in the reception of a distinc-tion between predestination to grace and predestinationto glory; and a consequent admission of the principlethat, though our own works do not avail for bringingus into a state of salvation on earth, they do avail, whenin that state of salvation or grace, for our attainmentof eternal glory in heaven. Two saints of late centu-ries, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alfonso, seem to haveprofessed this less rigid opinion, which is now the morecommon doctrine of the day.

Another instance is supplied by the Papal decisionsconcerning Usury. Pope Clement V., in the Councilof Vienne, declares, " If any one shall have fallen intothe error of pertinaciously presuming to affirm thatusury is no sin, we determine that he is to be punishedas a heretic." However, in the year 1831 the SacredPcenitentiaria answered an inquiry on the subject, tothe effect that the Holy See suspended its decision onthe point, and that a confessor who allowed of usurywas not to be disturbed, " non esse inquietandum."

Digitized by LiOOQIC

162 The Vatican Definition.

Here again a double aspect seems to have been realizedof the idea intended by the word usury.

To show how natural this process of partial and gra-dually developed teaching is, we may refer to the ap-parent contradiction of Bellarmine, who says " thePope, whether he can err or not, is to be obeyed by allthe faithful," {Rom. Pont. iv. 2), yet, as I have quotedhim above, p. 52-53, sets down (ii. 29) cases in whichhe is not to be obeyed. An illustration may be givenin political history in the discussions which took placeyears ago as to the force of the Sovereign's CoronationOath to uphold the Established Church. The wordswere large and general, and seemed to preclude anyact on his part to the prejudice of the Establishment;but lawyers succeeded at length in making a distinctionbetween the legislative and executive action of theCrown, which is now generally accepted.

These instances out of many similar are sufficient toshow what caution is to be observed, on the part ofprivate and unauthorized persons, in imposing uponthe fconsciences of others any interpretation of dogmaticenunciations which is beyond the legitimate sense ofthe words, inconsistent with the principle that all gene-ral rules have exceptions, and unrecognized by theTheological Schola.

12. From these various considerations it follows, thatPapal and Synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith,are of rare occurrence ; and this is confessed by all sobertheologians. Father O'Reilly, for instance, of Dublin,one of the first theologians of the day, says :—

" The Papal Infallibility is comparatively seldombrought into action. I am very far from denying that

Digitized by LiOOQIC

**" The Vatican Definition. 163

the Vicar of Christ is largely assisted by God inthe fulfilment of his sublime office, that he receivesgreat light and strength to do well the great workentrusted to him and imposed on him, that he is con-tinually guided from above in the government of theCatholic Church. But this is not the meaning of Infal-libility. . . What is the use of dragging in the Infalli-bility in connexion with Papal acts with which it hasnothing to do ? Papal acts, which are very good andvery holy, and entitled to all respect and obedience,acts in which the Pontiff is commonly not mistaken,but in which he could be mistaken and still remain in-fallible in the only sense in which he has been declaredto be so." (The Irish Mont/ily, vol. ii. No. 10, 1874.*This great authority, goes on to disclaim any de-sire to minimize, but there is, I hope, no real differ-ence between us here. He, I am sure, would sanctionme in my repugnance to impose upon the faith ofothers more than what the Church distinctly claims ofthem: and I should follow him jn thinking it a morescriptural, Christian, dutiful, happy frame of mind, tobe easy, than to be difficult, of belief. I have alreadyspoken of that uncatholic spirit, which starts with agrudging faith in the word of the Church, and deter-mines to hold nothing but what it is, as if by demon-stration, compelled to believe. To be a true Catholica man must have a generous loyalty towards ecclesi-astical authority, and accept what is taught him withwhat is called the pietas fideiy and only such a tone ofmind has a claim, and it certainly has a claim, to be

* Vid. Fossler also; and I believe Father Perrone says the same.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

164 The Vatican Definition.

met and tcf be handled with a wise and gentle mini*mism. Still the fact remains, that there has been oflate years a fierce and intolerant temper abroad, whichscorns and virtually tramples on the little ones ofChrist.

I end with an extract from the Pastoral of theSwiss Bishops, a Pastoral which has received the Pope'sapprobation:

" It in no way depends upon the caprice of thePope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such andsuch a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition.He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation,and to the truths which that revelation contains.He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in ex-istence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church.He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and bythe constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied upand limited by thatJoctrine, divinely revealed, whichaffirms that alongside religious society there is civilsociety, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,there is the power of temporal Magistrates, investedin their own domain with a full sovereignty, and towhom we owe obedience in conscience, and respect inall things morally permitted, and belonging to the do-main of civil society."

Digitized by LiOOQIC

§ io. Conclusion.

I HAVE now said all that I consider necessary inorder to fulfil the task which I have undertaken, a taskvery painful to me and ungracious. I account it a greatmisfortune, that my last -words, as they are likely to be,should be devoted to a controversy with one whom Ihave always so. much respected and admired. But Ishould not have been satisfied with myself, if I had notresponded to the call made upon me from such various,quarters, to the opportunity at last given me of break-ing a long silence on subjects deeply interesting to me,and to the demands of my own honour.

The main point of Mr. Gladstone's charge againstus is that in 1870, after a series of preparatory acts,a great change and irreversible was effected in thepolitical attitude of the Church by the third andfourth chapters of the Vatican Pastor jEternus, achange which no state or statesman can afford to passover. Of this cardinal assertion I consider he hasgiven no proof at all; and my object throughout theforegoing pages has been to make this clear. The,Pope's infallibility indeed and his supreme author-jity have in the Vatican capita been declared matters offaith ; but his prerogative of infallibility lies in mattersspeculative, and his prerogative of authority is no infal-libility, in laws, commands, or measures. His infalli-bility bears upon the domain of thought, not directly ofaction, and while it may lairly exercise the theologian,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

166 Conclusion.

philosopher, or man of science, it scarcely concerns thepolitician. Moreover, whether the recognition of hisinfallibility in doctrine will increase his actual powerover the faith of Catholics, remains to be seen, andmust be determined by the event ; for there aregifts too large and too fearful to be handledfreely. Mr. Gladstone seems to feel this, andtherefore insists upon the increase made by the Vati-can definition in the Pope's authority. But there is noreal increase; he has for centuries upon centuries hadand used that authority, which the Definition now de-clares ever to have belonged to him. Before the Coun-cil there was the rule of obedience, and there were ex-ceptions to the rule; and since the Council the ruleremains, and with it the possibility of exceptions.

It may be objected that a representation such asthis, is negatived by the universal sentiment which tes-tifies to the formidable effectiveness of the Vaticandecrees, and to the Pope's intention that they shouldbe effective; that it is the boast of some Catholics andthe reproach levelled against us by all Protestants,that the Catholic Church has now become beyondmistake a despotic aggressive Papacy, in which free-dom of thought and action is utterly extinguished.But I do not allow this alleged unanimous tes-timony to exist. Of course Prince Bismarck and otherstatesmen such as Mr. Gladstone, rest their oppositionto Pope Pius on the political ground ; but the Old-Catholic movement is based, not upon politics, butupon theology, and Dr. Ddllinger has more than once,I believe, declared his disapprobation of the Prussianacts against the Pope, while Father Hyacinth has quar-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conclusion. 167

relied with the anti-Catholic politics of Geneva. TheFrench indeed have shown their sense of thepolitical support which, the Holy Father's name andinfluence would bring to their country; but does anyone suppose that they expect to derive support defi-nitely irom the Vatican decrees, and not rather fromthe prestige of that venerable Authority, which thosedecrees have rather lowered*than otherwise in theeyes of the world? So again the Legitimists and Car-lists in France and Spain doubtless wish to associatethemselves with Rome; but where and how havethey signified that they can turn to profit the specialdogma of the Pope's infallibility, and would nothave been better pleased to be rid of the controversywhich it has occasioned ? In fact, instead of there beinga universal impression that the proclamation of his in-fallibility and supreme authority has strengthened thePope's secular position in Europe, there is room for sus-pecting that some of the politicians of the day, (I donot mean Mr. Gladstone) were not sorry that the Ul-tramontane party was successful at the Council in theirprosecution of an object which those politicians consi-dered to be favourable to the interests of the Civilpower. There is certainly some plausibility in thevievy, that it is not the " Curia Romana," as Mr. Gladstone considers, or the " Jesuits," who are the " astute "party, but that rather they are themselves victims ofthe astuteness of secular statesmen.

The recognition, which I am here implying, of theexistence of parties in the Church reminds me of what,while I have been writing these pages, I have all alongfelt would be at once the primd facie and also the most

Digitized by LiOOQIC

168 Conclusion.

telling criticism upon me. It will be said that thereare very considerable differences in argument and opi-nion between me and others who have replied to Mr.Gladstone, and I shall be taunted with the evidentbreak-down, thereby made manifest, of that topic ofglorification so commonly in the mouths of Catholics,that they are all of one way of thinking, while Protestants are all at variance with each other, and by thatvery variation of opinion can have no ground of cer-tainty severally in their own.

This is a showy and serviceable retort in contro-versy ; but it is nothing more. First, as regards thearguments which Catholics use, it has to be consideredwhether they are really incompatible with each other ;if they are not, then surely it is generally granted byProtestants as well as Catholics, that two distinct argu-ments for the same conclusion, instead of invalidatingthat conclusion, actually strengthen it. And next,supposing the difference to be one of conclusionsthemselves, then it must be considered whether thedifference relates to a matter of faith or to a matter ofopinion. If a matter of faith is in question I grantthere ought to be absolute agreement, or rather I main-tain that there is; I mean to say that only one out ofthe statements put forth can be true, and that the otherstatements will be at once withdrawn by their authors,by virtue of their being Catholics, as soon as theylearn on good authority that they are erroneous. Butif the differences which I have supposed are only intheological opinion, they do but show that after allprivate judgment is not so utterly unknown among

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conclusion. 169

Catholics and in Catholic Schools, as Protestants aredesirous to establish.

I have written on this subject at some length inLectures which I published many years ago, but, itwould appear, with little practical effect upon thosefor whom they were intended. " Left to himself/' I say,"each Catholic likes and would maintain his own opi-nion and his private judgment just as much as a Pro-testant; and he has it and he maintains it, just so faras the Church does not, by the authority of Revela-tion, supersede it. The very moment the Churchceases to speak, at the very point at which she, thatis, God who speaks by her, circumscribes her range ofteaching, then private judgment of necessity starts up;there is nothing to hinder it. . . A Catholic sacrificeshis opinion to the Word of God, declared through HisChurch ; but from the nature of the case, there is no-thing to hinder him having his own opinion and ex-pressing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, theoracle of Revelation, does not speak." *

In saying this, it must not be supposed that I amdenying what is called the pietas fidei, that is, a senseof the great probability of the truth of enunciationsmade by the Church, which are not formally and ac-tually to be considered as the "Word of God."Doubtless it is our duty to check many a speculation,or at least many an utterance, even though we are notbound to condemn it as contrary to religious truth.But, after all, the field of religious thought which theduty of faith occupies, is small indeed compared with

* Vide " Difficulties felt by Anglicans." Lecture X.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

170 Conclusion.

that which is open to our free, though of course to ourreverent and conscientious, speculation.

I draw from these remarks two conclusions ; first as re-gartis Protestants,—Mr. Gladstone should not on the onehand declaim against us as having4< no mental freedom,'*if the periodical press on the other hand is to mock usas admitting a liberty of private judgment, purely Pro-testant. We surely are not open to contradictory im-putations. Every note of triumph over the differenceswhich mark our answers to Mr. Gladstone is a distinctadmission that we do not deserve his injurious re-proach that we are captives and slaves of the Pope.

Secondly, for the benefit of some Catholics, I wouhlobserve that, while I acknowledge one Pope, juredivino,I acknowledge no other, and that I think it a usurpa-tion, too wicked to be comfortably dwelt upon, whenindividuals use their own private judgment, in the dis-cussion of religious questions, not simply " abundarein suo sensu," but for the purpose of anathematizingthe private judgment of others.

I say there is only one Oracle of God, the HolyCatholic Church and the Pope as her head. To herteaching 1 have ever desired all my thoughts, all mywords to be conformed ; to her judgment I submit what1 have now written, what I have ever written, not onlyas regards its truth, but as to its prudence, its suitable-ness, and its expedience. I think I have not pursuedany end of my own in anything that I have published,but I know well, that, in matters not of faith, I mayhave spoken when I ought to have been silent.

And now, my dear Duke, I release you from this

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Conclusion. 171

long discussion, and, in concluding, beg you to acceptthe best Christmas wishes and prayers for your presentand future from

Your affectionate Friend and Servant,

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.

The Oratory, December 27, 1874.

Digitized

by Google

**

Digitized

by Google

SOW SlViAJDT**

ntholu^mnil^^hnmmc

Adam and Eve.Addison's Line.Alexander Cardinal Barnabo.An Ancient Psalter.Anglicans and Presbyterians.A*>troi omical Data.Brother Phi ip.Calendars.Cardinal Mezzofanti.Cathoiic Colleges, Universities, Semina-ries, and Academies in the U. S.Celtic Crosses.Christmas Cribs.Church Chronology.Church Statistics.Col. James* F. Meline.Coventry.

Days of Obligation.

D«\ J. V. Huntington.

Father Charles de Signenzay Gongora, S.J.

Father Francis Xavier Clavigero, S.J.

Hierarchy of the United States.

History of the Tichborne Family.

How the Trappists Live.

Joan of \rr.

John O'Donovan. LL.D., M.R.I.A., etc.

Kilfnn»a Church Ruins.

Labyrinth of St. Bernard.

Libraries of France.

Ll-t of Deceasfd Bishops of the U. S.

Marie Edm6 Pan.

CONTENTS.

Melrose Abbey.

Counr- of Ledochowski, Archbishop ofGneeen and Posen, Confessor forthe Faith.

Most Rev. Anthony Blanc, D.D.

Most Rhv. Francis Patrick Kenrick,D.D.

44 N» Popery " or 4k Gordon " Riots.

On the Loan of Books.

Origin ot Local Names in New Jersey.

Populition of the Earth.

Postage Portrait-*.

Puritan *unday.

Quin Abbey, County Clare, Ireland.

Kales ot Postage.

Rt. Rev Francis Patrick McFarland, D.D.

Right Rev. Richard Vincent Whelan, D.D.

Sancuary of Our Lady of Guadalupe,Mexico.

Something for the Young and Old to Solve.

So-net.

St««ne of Scone.

The Asylum of Diana.

The Culdees of Scotland.

The Monk of Marraoutier.

The Old Church at Selskar, Wexford.

The Phantasmagoria of the Hearth,

The Schoolmen or the Middle Ages.

The Very Rev. William Gahan, D.D.

To-day.

William Cardinal Allen.

Single Copies, 25 cents.

TERMS.

Per Dozen, $2 50.

100 Copies, $16.

The Catholic Publication Society,

LAWSEKCZ S2B0Z, Gen. Agent,

9 WARREN ST., N.7. I

'heffiztholu World?

MONTHLY MAGAZINE

Qexxorai tritoirat^xr^ ai*& £3q£@»q©-

The Catholic World contains original articles from the baft]Catholic English writers at home and abroad, as well as t ran sialicfrom the reviews and magazines of France, Germany, Belgium, Italy^Jand Spain. Its readers are thus put in possession of the choicest pf&]ductions of Euiopean periodical literature in a cheap and convenieform.

Extract from Letter of Pope Pins IX.

Rove, Dec. 8", 1866Rbv. I. T. Hbokbb :

We heartily congratulate you upon the esteem which ypur periodical, " Tb*Catholic World," has, through its erudition and perspicuity, acquired even amongthose who differ from us, eU. PIUS IX., Pope.

Letter from the Most Rev. Archbishop of New York.

New York, February 7, 1865.Dear Father Hfcker :

I have read the Prospectus which you have kindly submitted of a new CathoU*Magazine, to be entitled "The Catholic World," which it is proposed publishingin this city under your supervision ; and I am happy to state that there is nothingin its whole scope and spirit which has not my hearty approval. The want of somesunh periodical is widely and deeply felt, and I cannot doubt that the atholic com- *,munity at large will reioice at the prospect of having this want, if not fuHy, at leastin great measure supplied.

With the privilege which you have of drawing on the intellectual wealth ofCatholic Europe, and the liberal means placed at your disposal, there ought to beno such word as failure in your vocabulary.

Hoping that this laudable enterprise will meet with a well-merited success, andunder woa's blessing bacom 3 fruitful in all the good which it proposes,

I remain, Rev. and Dear Sir, very truly, your friend and servant in Christ

4- JOHN, Archbishop of New York.

Copy of Letter from Cardinal Bartiabo:

Rome, September 3, 1865.Kev. Fathkr :

I have heard of the publication of *• The Catholic "World " with great satis-faction. I anticipate for It a complete sucoess. There are .so many periodicals inour day occupied in attacking the truto, that it is a source of pleasure to its friendswhen the same means are employed in the defence of it., I return you my thanksfor the attention paid in sending me "The Catholic World." I pray the Lord topreserve you many years. Affectionately in the Lord,

ALEXANDER, CARDINAL BARNABO,

Prefect of the Propaganda.Rev. I. T. HECKER, Superior of the Congregation of St. Paul, N. Y.

THE CATHOLIC WORLD

Forms a double-column octavo magazine of 144 pages each number,making two large volumes, or 1728 pages, each year, and is furnished t4>,subscribers for $5 a year, invariably in advance. Single copies 50 cents.All remittances and communications on business should be addressed to

THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY,

Lawrence Eehoe, Gen. Agent,P. O. Box 5,396, 9 WARREN STREET, NEW YORK.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

POSTSCRIPT

TO

A Letter addressed to His Grace the Duke ofNorfolk.

Digitized

by Google

Digitized by LiOOQIC

POSTSCRIPT.

February 26, 1875.—Mr. Gladstone's new Pamphlet,which has just appeared, is only partially directedagainst the foregoing Letter, and, when he remarks onwhat I have written, he does so with a gentleness whichmay be thought to be unfair to his argument. More-over, he commences with some pages about me per-sonally of so special a character, that, did I dare dwellupon them in their direct import, they would of coursegratify me exceedingly. But I cannot do so, because Ibelieve that, with that seriousness which is characteris-tic of him, he has wished to say what he felt to be true,not what was complimentary; and because, looking onbeyond his words to what they imply, I see in them,though he did not mean it so himself, a grave, or almosta severe question addressed to me, which effectuallykeeps me from taking pleasure in them, however greatis the honour they do me.

It is indeed a stern question which his words suggest,whether now that I have come to the end of my days, Ihave used aright whatever talents God has given me, andas He would have had me use them, in building up reli-gious truth, and not in pulling down, breaking up, andscattering abroad. All I can say in answer to it is, that

Digitized by LiOOQIC

174 Postscript

from the day I became a Catholic to this day, now closeupon thirty years, I have never had a moment's mis-giving that the communion of Rome is that Churchwhich the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alonehas " the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the cov-enants, and the revealed law, and the service of God,and the promises," and in which the Anglican commu-nion, whatever its merits and demerits, whatever thegreat excellence of individuals in it, has, as such, nopart. Nor have I ever for a moment hesitated in myconviction since 1845, ^at it was my clear duty to jointhat Catholic Church, as I did then join it, which in myown conscience I felt to be divine. Persons and places,incidents and circumstances of life, which belong to myfirst forty-four years, are deeply lodged in my memoryand in my affections ; moreover, I have had more to tryand afflict me in various ways as a Catholic than as anAnglican; but never for a moment have I wished my-self back; never have I ceased to thank my Maker forHis mercy in enabling me to make the great change,and never has He let me feel forsaken by Him, or indistress, or any kind of religious trouble. I do notknow how to avoid thus meeting Mr. Gladstone's lan-guage about me : but I can say no more. The judg-ment must be left to a day to come.

In the remarks that follow I shall take the order ofmy sections.

My first reason for writing in answer to Mr. Glad-stone's Expostulation was his charge against us, " thatCatholics, if they act consistently with their principles,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript 175

cannot be loyal subjects," supr. p. 8. And he withdrawsthis in his new Pamphlet {Vaticanism^ p. 14), thoughnot in very gracious language, " The immediate pur-pose of my appeal," he says, " has been attained, in sofar that the loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the mass remains evidently untainted andsecure/'

My second reason was to protest against " his attackupon our moral uprightness," supr. ibid. Here againhe seems to grant that, if what I say can be received asgenuine Catholic teaching, I have succeeded in my pur-pose. He has a doubt, however, whether it does not" smack of Protestantism, Vat. p. 69. He does not giveany distinct reason for this doubt; and, though I shallnotice it in its place, infr. § 5, I think it fair to main-tain as a plain principle of controversy, that it is theaccuser who has to prove his point, and that he mustnot content himself with professing that the accusedparties have not succeeded to his satisfaction in dis-proving it.

Lastly, as springing out of these two charges andillustrating them, was his exaggerated notion of theforce, drift, and range of the Vatican definition of thePope's infallibility. Here again I consider he leavesmy interpretation of it without reply, though appa-rently it does not content him. Some of the objec-tions, which he throws out obiter to what I have said,shall now be noticed.

Supr. page 18. I have said, apropos of the pros-pect of a definition of the Pope's Infallibility in thetime of Pitt and Peel, " If [the government] wanted to

Digitized by LiOOQIC

176 Postscript.

^obtain some real information about the probabilities ofthe future, why did they not go to headquarters ? whynot go to Rome? ... It is impossible that the)could have entered into formal negociations with thePope, without its becoming perfectly clear that Romecould never be a party to such a pledge as Englandwanted, and*that no pledge from Catholics was ofvalue to which Rome was not a party." To my as-tonishment Mr. Gladstone seems to consider this a fataladmission. He cries out, " Statesmen of the future,recollect the words! . . . The lesson received is this:although pledges were given, although their validitywas formally and even passionately asserted, althoughthe subject-matter was one of civil allegiance,' no pledgefrom Catholics was of any value, to which Rome wasnot a party.' " p. 39.

I deny that the question of infallibility was one ofcivil allegiance, but let that pass; as to the main prin-ciple involved in what I have said, it certainly doesperplex and confuse me that a statesman with Mr.Gladstone's experience should make light of creden-tials, and should not recognize the difference betweenparty opinion and formal decisions and pledges. Whatis the use of accredited ministers and an official inter-course between foreign powers, if the acts of mereclasses or interests will do instead of them ? At acongress, I believe the first act of plenipotentiaries is toshow to each other their credentials. What ministerof foreign affairs would go to the Cesarowitch, whohappened to be staying among us, for an explanationof an expedition of Russia in upper Asia, instead ofhaving recourse to the Russian ambassador ?

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 177

The common saying, that *' Whigs are Tories out ofplace " illustrates again what is in itself so axiomatic.Successive ministries of opposite views show in history,for the most part, as one consistent national govern-ment, and, when a foreign power mistakes the objec-tions which public men in opposition made to thedetails, circumstances, or seasonableness of certainministerial measures, for deliberate judgments in itsfavour, it is likely, as in the case of the great Napo-leon, to incur eventually, when the opposition comesinto office, great disappointment, and* has no one toblame but itself. So again, the Czar Nicholas seemsto have mistaken the deputation of the peace party be-fore the Crimean war for the voice of the Englishnation. It is not a business-like way of acting to as-sume the assurances of partizans, however sincerelymade, for conditions of a contract. There is nothingindeed to show that the Holy See in 1793 or 1829 hadany notion that the infallibility of the Pope, if evermade a dogma, would be so made within such limits oftime as could affect the bond fide character of the pros-pects which3nghsh and Irish Catholics opened uponMr. Pitt or Mr. Peel. The events in Europe of theforegoing half century gave no encouragement to thePapal cause. Nor did Catholics alone avow anticipa-tions which helped to encourage the latter statesman inthe course, into which the political condition of Ireland,not any kindness to the Irish religion, primarily turnedhim. There were Anglican ecclesiastics, whom he de-servedly trusted, who gave it * to him as their settledopinion, as regards the Protestantism of England, that,if the emancipation of Catholics could but be passed in

Digitized by LiOOQIC

178 Postscript

the night, there would be no excitement about it nextmorning. Did such an influential judgment, thusoffered to Mr. Peel, involve a breach of a pledge, be-cause it was not fulfilled ?

It was notorious all over the world that the North ofCatholic Christendom took a different view of Papal in-fallibility from the South. A long controversy hadgone on; able writers were to be found on either side ;each side was positive in the truth of its own cause;each hoped to prevail. The Gallican party, towardswhich, England and Ireland inclined, thought the othersimply extravagant; but with the Ultramontane stoodRome itself. Ministers do not commonly believe allthe representations of deputations who come to themwith the advocacy of particular measures, though thosedeputations may be perfectly sincere in what they aver.The Catholics of England and If eland in 1826 were al-most as one man in thinking lightly of the question, buteven then there were those who spoke out in a differentsense, and warned the government that there was a con-trary opinion, and one strong both in its pretensions andin its prospects. I am not bound to go into this subjectat length, for I have allowed the dominant feelingamong our Catholics at that day was against the pru-dence or likelihood of a definition of Papal infallibility;but I will instance one or two writers of name who hadspoken ?n a different sense.

I cannot find that Mr. Gladstone deals with my re-ference to Archbishop Troy, whose pastoral bears thedate (1793) of the very year in which, as Mr. Gladstonetells us, Vat. p. 48, a Relief Act was granted to Ireland.The Archbishop, as the passage has been found for me,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript 179

says, " Many Catholics contend that the Pope .is infallible . . ; others deny this. . . . Untilthe Church shall decide . . . either opinion may beadopted." Supr., page 16. This is a very significant,as well as authoritative passage.

Again :—Father Mumford's Catholic Scripturist is apopular Address to Protestants, in the vernacular,which has gone through .various editions in the 17th,18th, and 19th centuries. The edition from which Iquote is that of 1863. He says, p. 39, " Whether thedefinition of a council alone, defining without theirchief pastor, or the definition of the chief pastoralone, defining without a council, be infallible, or no,there be several opinions amongst us, in which we doand may vary without any prejudice to our faith, whichis not built upon what is yet under opinion, but uponthat which is delivered as infallible."

Again, Bishop Hay is one of the most conspicuousPrelates and authoritative writers amongst us of the18th century. In his "Sincere Christian" publishedbetween 1770 and 1780, he treats of the infallibility ofthe Pope at considerable length, and in its favour. Hesays, p. 188 (ed. 1871) that that doctrine "is not pro-posed to us as an article of divine faith, nor has theChurch ever made any decision concerning it. Greatnumbers of the most learned divines are of opinionthat in such a case, the Head of the Church is infalliblein what he teaches, but there are others who are of acontrary opinion." He proceeds, " On what groundsdo those divines found their opinion, who believe thatthe Pope himself, when he speaks to the faithful ashead of the church, is infallible in what he teaches ? "

Digitized by LiOOQIC

j8o Postscript

and he answers, " On very strong reasons both fromScripture, tradition, and reason.*' These he goesthrough seriatim; then he adds, p. 194, "What proofdo the others bring for their opinion, that the Head ofthe Church is not infallible? They bring not a singletext of Scripture, nor almost one argument from tradi-tion to prove it."

I might add that the chief instrument in rousing andrallying the Protestant sentiment against Catholicemancipation was from first to last the episcopate andclergy of the Church Established ; now, if there was anybody of men who were perfectly aware of the divisionof sentiment among Catholics as to the seat of infalli-bility, it was they. Their standard divines, writing inthe vernacular, discharge it, as one of their most effec-tive taunts, against their opponents, that, whilst thelatter held the doctrine of infallibility, they differamong themselves whether it is lodged in an Ecumeni-cal Council or in the Roman See. It can never besaid then that this opinion, which has now become adogma, was not perfectly well known to be living andenergetic in the Catholic communion, though it wasnot an article of faith, and was not spoken of as suchby Catholics in this part of the world during the cen-turies of persecution.

Mr. Gladstone, as his mildest conclusion against us,is inclined to grant that it was not an act of duplicityin us, that in 1826 our Prelates spoke against thePope's infallibility, though in 1870 they took part indefining it; but then he maintains it to be at least aproof that the Church has changed its doctrine, andthereby forfeited its claim to be "semper eadem."

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 181

But it is no change surely to decide between two pre-valent opinions; but, if it is to be so regarded, thenchange has been the characteristic of the church fromthe earliest times, as, for instance, in the third century,on the point of the validity of baptism by heretics.And hence such change as has taken place, (which Ishould prefer to call doctrinal development,) is in itselfa positive argument in favour of the Church's identityfrom first to last; for a growth in its creed is a law ofits life. I have already insisted upon this, supra, p.139; also in former volumes, as in my Apologia, andDifficulties of Anglicans.

§3-

Supr. p. 33. As Mr. Gladstone denied that thePapal prerogatives were consistent with ancient his-tory, I said in answer that that history on the contrarywas the clearest witness in their favour, as showinghow the promises made to St. Peter were providential-ly fulfilled by political, &c, changes external to thePope, which worked for him. I did not mean to denythat those preiogatives were his from the beginning,but merely that they were gradually brought into fullexercise by a course of events, which history records.Thus it was a mistake to say that Catholics could notappeal in favour of the Papal power to history. Tomake my meaning quite clear, as I hoped, I distinctlysaid I was not speaking theologically, but historically,nay, looking at the state of things with " non-Catholiceyes." However, as the following passage from theEtudes Religieuses shews, it seems that I have been mis-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

182 Postscript

understood, though the writer himself, Pfere Rami&re,does me the justice and the favour to defend me, and Ihere adopt his words as my defence. He says :

" Pour exprimer cette concentration providentielle,dans les mains du Pape, du pouvoir ecclesiastiquepartag6 autrefois dans une plus large mesure par l'epis-copat, le P. Newman se sort d'un terme 16gal qu'il ne fautpas prendre a la lettre. II dit que le Pape est heretierpar defaut de la hierarchie ecumenique di ive siecle. Lesavant directeur de la Voce delta Veritb bl&me cetteexpression, qui impliquerait, selon lui, qui le Pape tientson pouvoir de la hierarchie. Mais le P. Newman exclutcette interpretation, puis qu'il fait derivait le plenitudedu pouvoir pontifical de la promesse faite par J6sus-Christ a Saint Pierre," p. 256, 7, note.

§4.

Supr. p. 67'. I here say that " were I actually a sol-dier or sailor in her Majesty's service in a just war, andshould the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers andsailors to retire from her service, taking the advice, &c,. . I should not obey him." Here I avail myself of apassage in Canon Neville's recent pamphlet ("A fewComments," &c, Pickering) in which he speaks with theauthority belonging to a late theological Professor ofMaynooth:

" In the impossible hypothesis of the Pope being en-gaged in a war with England, how would the allegianceof English Catholics be affected ? . . how would it be,if they were soldiers or sailors ? . . . . Some one willurge, the Pope may issue a mandate enforced by an

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 183

annexed excommunication, forbidding all Catholics toengage in the war against him .... The supposedaction of the Pope does not change the question mate-rially. His mandate will derive its force from hisauthoritative declaration of the immorality of the war,and the censures annexed," u e. excommunication," will have to be subjected to the ordinary rules andprinciples of ecclesiastical punishments. For instance,the soldiers and sailors would not incur it, because' grave fears* excuse from censure [excommunication],censures being directed against the contumacious, notagainst those who act through fear or coercion ... Itis a trite principle, that mere ecclesiastical laws do notbind, when there would be a very grave inconveniencein their observance ; and it denies as a rule to any hu-man legislator (e.g., the Pope) the power of makinglaws or precepts, binding men to the performance ofactions, which, from the danger and difficulty attendanton their fulfilment, are esteemed heroic/' pp. 101, 2.

Supr. p. 79. I have said, " The Pope, who comesof Revelation, has no jurisdiction over Nature," i.e.the natural Law. Mr. Gladstone on the other handsays, " Idle it is to tell us, finally, that the Pope isbound by the moral and divine law, by the command-ments of God, by the rules of the Gospel: ... for ofthese, one and all, the Pope himself, by himself, is thejudge without appeal," p. 102. That is, Mr. Glad-stone thinks that the Pope may deny and anathematizethe proposition, "There is one God:" and may pro-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

184 Postscript

ceed to circulate by Cardinal Antonelli a whole Sylla-bus of kindred " erroneous theses " for the instructionsof the Bishops. Catholics think this impossible, as be-lieving in a Divine Providence ever exercised over theChurch. But let us grant, for argument-sake, that aPope could commit so insane a violation of the Natu-ral and the Revealed Law:—we know what would bethe consequence to such a Pope. Cardinal Turrecre-mata teaches, as I have quoted him, that " were thePope to command any thing against Holy Scripture,or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments,or the commands of the natural or divine law, he oughtnot to be obeyed, but in such commands to be ig-nored." Supr. p. 68. Other, and they the highestUltramontane theologians, hold that a Pope, whoteaches heresy, ipso facto ceases to be Pope.

Supr. p. 86. Here, after stating that there are casesin which the Pope's commands are to be resisted by in-dividual Catholics, I challenge Mr. Gladstone to bringpassages from our authoritative writers to the contrary:and I add, " they must be passages declaring not onlythat the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but that there areno exceptions to this rule, for exceptions ever must bein all concrete matters." Instead of doing so, Mr. Glad-stone contents himself with enunciating the contradic-tory to what I have said. " Dr. Newman says thereare exceptions to this precept of obedience. But thisis just what the Council has not said. The Church bythe Council imposes Aye. The private conscience re-serves to itself the title to say No. I must confess thatin this apology there is to me a strong, undeniable,smack of Protestantism." p. 69.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript.^ 185

Mr. Gladstone says " there is to me; " yes, certainlyto him and other Protestants, because they do not knowour doctrine. I have given in my Pamphlet, threereasons in justification of what I said ; first that excep-tions must be from the nature of the case, " for in altconcrete matters," not only in precepts of obedience,rules are but general, and exceptions must occur.Then, in a later page, p. 159, I give actual instances,which have occurred in the history of Catholic teaching,of exceptions after large principles have been laid down.But my main reason lies in the absolute statements oftheologians. I willingly endure to have about me asmack of Protestantism, which attaches to CardinalTurrecremata in the 15th century, to Cardinals Jaco-batius and Bellarmine in the 16th, to the Carmelites ofSalamanca in the 17th, and to all theologians prior tothem ; and also to the whole Schola after them, suchas to Fathers Corduba, Natalis Alexander and Busen-baum, and so down to St. Alfonso Liguori the latestDoctor of the Church in the 18th, and to CardinalGousset and to Archbishop Kenrick in the 19th.

§6.

Supr. pp. 99, 100. Speaking of the proposition con-demned in the Encyclical of 1864, to the effect that itis the right of any one to have liberty to give publicutterance, in every possible shape, by every possiblechannel, without any let or hindrance from God orman, to all his notions whatever, I have said that " itseems a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he callssuch a doctrine of conscience a deliramentum" Pres-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

186 Postscript.

ently I add, " Perhaps Mr. Gladstone will say, Whyshould the Pope take the trouble to condemn what isso wild ? but he does," &c.

On this Mr. Gladstone remarks, Vat. p. 21, 22y '" Itappears to me that this is, to use a mild phrase, merelytrifling with the subject. We are asked to believe thatwhat the Pope intended to condemn was a state ofthings which never has existed in any country in theworld. Now he says he is condemning one of thecommonly prevailing errors of the time, familiarlyknown to the Bishops whom he addresses. Whatbishop knows of a State which by law allows a perfect-ly free course to blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition ? "

I do not find any thing to show that the Tope isspeaking of States, and not of writers ; and, though Ido not pretend to know against what writers he isspeaking, yet there are writers who do maintain doc-trines which carried out consistently would reach thatdeliramentum which the Pope speaks of, if they havenot rather already reached it. We are a sober people;but are not the doctrines of even so grave and patienta thinker as the late Mr. J. S. Mill very much in thatdirection ? He says, " The appropriate region of humanliberty comprises first the inward domain of conscious-ness; demanding liberty of conscience in the mostcomprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling,absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all sub-jects practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theo-logical. The liberty of expressing and publishing opin-ion may seem to fall under a different principle, since itbelongs to that part of the conduct of an individualwhich concerns other people ; but, being almost of as

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 187

much importance as the liberty of thought itself, andresting in great part on the same reasons, is practicallyinseparable front it, &c, &c. . . . No society in whichthese liberties are not on the whole respected, is free,whatever maybe its form of government,'' (On Liberty,Introd.) Of course he does not allow of a freedom toha^n others, though we have to consider well what hemeans by harming: but it is a freedom which mustmeet with no " impediment from our fellow creatures,so long as what we do does not harm them, eventhough they should think our conduct foolish, perverse,or wrong." " The only freedom," he continues," which deserves the name is that of pursuing our owngood in our own way, so long as we do not attempt todeprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to-obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his ownhealth, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual."

That is, no immoral doctrines, poems, novels, plays,conduct, acts, may be visited by the reprobation ofpublic opinion; nothing must be put down, I do notsay by the laws, but even by society, by the press, byreligious influence, merely on the ground of shockingthe sense of decency and the modesty of a Christiancommunity. Nay, the police must not visit HolywellStreet, nor a license be necessary for dancing rooms:but the most revolting atrocities of heathen times andcountries must for conscience-sake be allowed free exer-cise in our great cities. Averted looks indeed andsilent disgust, or again rational expostulation, is ad-missible against them, but nothing of a more energeticcharacter.

I do not impute this to Mr. Mill. He had too much

Digitized by LiOOQIC

188 Postscript.

English common sense to carry out his principles tothese extreme but legitimate conclusions ; he strove tofind means of limiting them by the introduction ofother and antagonistic principles ; but then that sucha man held the theory of liberty which he has avowed,and that he has a great following, is a suggestion to usthat the Holy See may have had abundant reason inthe present state of the continent to anathematize aproposition which to Mr. Gladstone seems so wild andunheard of.

Supra, pp. 102. I have said that the Syllabus is tobe received from the Pope with " profound submission/*p. 102, and " by an act of obedience," p. 106; I add," butnot of faith," for it " has no dogmatic force." I main-tain this still. I say, in spite of Professor Schulte, and theEnglish Catholic writer to whom Mr. Gladstone refers,p. 32,1 have as much right to maintain that the implicitcondemnation with which it visits its eighty proposi-tions is not ex catkedrd, or an act of the InfallibleChair, as have those " gravest theologians," as BishopFessler speaks, who call its dogmatic force in question,Fessler, p. 107. I do not know what Fessler himself saysof it more than that it is to be received with submissionand obedience. I do not deny another's right to con-sider it in his private conscience an act of infallibility,or to say, in Mr. Gladstone's words, p. 35, that " utter-ances ex catkedrd are not the only form in which In-fallibility can speak ; " I only say that I have a right tothink otherwise. And when the Pope by a letter ap-proves of one writer who writes one way, and of anotherwho writes in another, he makes neither dogmatic, but

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 189

both allowable. Mr. Gladstone speaks as if what thePope says to Fr. Schrader undoes what he says toBishop Fessler ; why not say that his letter to Fesslerneutralizes his letter to Schrader? I repeat, when Ispeak of minimizing, I am not turning the professionof it into a dogma; men, if they will, may maximizefor me, provided they too keep from dogmatizing.This is my position all through these discussions, andmust be kept in mind by any fair reasoner.

I grant the Pope has laid a great stress on the Syl-labus; he is said in 1867 to have spoken of it as " aregula docendi;" I cannot tell whether vivd voce, orin writing; anyhow this did not interfere with Fessler'sgrave theologians in 1871 considering the Pope did notin it teach dogmatically and infallibly. Moreover, howcan a list of proscribed propositions be a " rule," ex-cept by turning to the Allocutions, &c, in which theyare condemned ? and in those Allocutions, when weturn to them, we find in what sense, and with whatdegree of force severally. In itself the Syllabus can beno more than what the Pope calls it, a syllabus or col-lection of errors. Led by the references inserted in itto the Allocutions, etc., I have ventured to call itsomething more, viz., a list or index raisonni; an ideanot attached to it by me first of all, for Pfere Daniel, inthe October of that very year, 1867, tells us, in the*' Etudes Religieuses," " Au Syllabus luimeme il nefaut pas demander que le degr6 de clart6 que convienta une bonne table des matures," p. 514.

But, whether an index or not, and though it have asubstantive character, it is at least clear that the onlyway in which it can be a " rule of teaching " is by its

Digitized by LiOOQIC

190 - Postscript

telling us what to avoid; and this consideration willexplain what I mean by receiving it with " obedience,"which to some persons is a difficult idea, when con-trasted with accepting it with faith. I observe thenthat obedience is concerned with doing, but faith withaffirming. Now, when we are told to avoid certainpropositions, we are told primarily and directly not todo something; whereas, ill order to affirm, we musthave positive statements put before us. For instance,it is easy to understand, and in our teaching to avoidthe proposition, " Wealth is the first of goods; " butwho shall attempt to ascertain \yhat the affirmativepropositions are, one or more, which are necessarilyinvolved in the prohibition of such a proposition, andwhich must be clearly set down before we can make anact of faith of them ?

However, Mr. Gladstone argues, that, since thePope's condemnation of the propositions of the Sylla-bus has, as I have allowed, a claim on the obedienceof Catholics, that very fact tells decisively against theunfavorable view the Pope takes of the same; he thinksI have here made a fatal admission. It is enoughy hesays, that the Syllabus " unquestionably demandsobedience ; " that is, enough, whether the propositionscondemned in it deserve condemnation or not. Hereare his very, words: " What is conclusive . . is this,that the obligation to obey it is asserted on all hands ;. . it is therefore absolutely superfluous to follow Dr.Newman through his references to the Briefs and Al-locutions marginally noted," in order to ascertain theirmeaning and drift. . . " I abide by my account of thecontents of the Syllabus." p. 36. That is, the proposi-

Digitized by VjOOQIC

Postscript. 191

tions may be as false as heathenism, but they havethis redeeming virtue, that the Pope denounces them.His judgment of them may be as true as Scripture,but it carries this unpardonable sin with it, that it isgiven with a purpose, and not as a mere literaryflourish. Therefore I will not inquire into the propo-sitions at all; but my original conclusion shall be dog-matic and irreformable. Stat pro ratione voluntas.

Supra, p. 113,1 have declined to discuss the difficultieswhich Mr. Gladstone raises upon our teaching respectingthe marriage contract (on which I still think him eitherobscure or incorrect), because they do not fall withinthe scope to which I professed to confine my remarks;however, his fresh statements, as they are found, Vat.p. 28, lead me to say as follows:

The non-Roman marriages in England, he says, " donot at present fall under the foul epithets of Rome.But why ? Not because we marry . . . under thesanctions of religion, for our marriages are, in the eyeof the Pope, purely civil marriages, but only for thetechnical . . . reason that the disciplinary decreesof Trent are not canonically in force in this country,etc."

Here Mr. Gladstone seems to consider that there areonly two ways of marrying according to Catholic teach-ing ; he omits a third, in which we consider the essenceof the sacrament to lie. He speaks of civil marriage,and of marriage " under the sanctions of religion," bywhich phrase he seems to mean marriage with a rite anda minister. But it is also a religious marriage, if theparties, without a priest, by a mutual act of consent, as

Digitized by LiOOQIC

192 Postscript.

in the presence of God, many themselves; and such avow of each to other is, according to our theology, reallythe constituting act, the matter and form, the sacramentof marriage. That is, he omits the very contract whichwe specially call marriage. This being the case, it fol-lows that every clause of the above passage is incorrect.

1. Mr. Gladstone says that English non-Roman mar-riages are held valid at Rome, not because they arecontracted " under the sanctions of religion." On thecontrary, this is the very reason why they are held validthere: viz., only because parties who have already re-ceived the Christian rite of baptism, proceed to givethemselves to each other in the sight of God sacramen-tally, though they may not call it a sacrament.

2. Mr. Gladstone says, " our marriages are in the eyeof the Pope purely civil marriages." Just the reverse,speaking, as he is, of Church of England marriages.They are considered, in the case of baptized persons,sacramental marriages.

3. Mr. Gladstone says, that they are received at Romeas valid, "only for the technical, etc., reason that thedisciplinary decrees of Trent are not canonically in forcein this country. There is nothing, unless it be motivesof mere policy, to prevent the Pope from giving them[those decrees] force here, when he pleases. If, andwhen that is done, every marriage thereafter concludedin the English Church, will, according to his own words,be * a filthy concubinage' " This is not so; I quote tothe point two sufficient authorities, St. Alfonso Liguoriand Archbishop Kenrick.

Speaking of the clandestinity of marriage (that is,when it is contracted without parish priest and wit-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

Postscript 193

nesses,) as an impediment to its validity, St. Alfonsosays: " As regards non-Catholics (infideles), or Catholicswho live in non-Catholic districts, or where the Councilof Trent has not been received . . such a marriageis valid'' Tom. viii, p. 67, ed. 1845. Even then,though the discipline of Trent was received in England,still it would not cease to be a Protestant country, andtherefore marriages in Protestant churches would bei/alid.

Archbishop Kenrick is still more explicit. He says;" Constat Patres Tridentinos legem ita tulisse, ut haere-ticorum caetus jam ab Ecclesik divulsos non respiceret. . . . Hoc igitur clandestlnitatis impedimentumad haereticos seorsim convenientes in locis ubi grassan-tur haereses, non est extendendum." Theol. Mor. t. 3,

P. 351-

Such being the Catholic rule as to recognition of Pro-testant marriages, the Pope could not, as Mr. Gladstonethinks, any day invalidate English Protestant marriagesby introducing into England the discipline of Trent. Theonly case, in which any opportunity might occur to thePope, according to his accusation, of playing fast andloose, is when there was a doubt whether the numberof Protestants in a Catholic country was large enoughto give them a clear footing there, or when the Govern-ment refused to recognize them. Whether such anopportunity has practically occurred and has ever beenacted on, I have not the knowledge either to affirmor deny.

§ 8.Supr. p. 127. "But if the fact be so that the Fa-Digitized by VjOOQ IC

194 Postscript.

»

thers were not unanimous, is the definition valid?This depends on the question whether unanimity, atleast moral, is or is not necessary for its validity." Vid.also p. 129.

It should be borne in mind that these letters of minewere not intended for publication, ai)d are introducedinto my text as documents of 1870, with a view of re-futing the false reports of my bearing at that timetowards the Vatican Council and Definition. To altertheir wording would have been to destroy their argu-mentative value. I said nothing to imply that on re-flection I agreed to every proposition which I set downon my prima facie view of the matter.

One passage of it, perhaps from my own fault, Mr.Gladstone has misunderstood. He quotes me, Vat, p.13, as holding that "a definition which the Pope ap-proves, is not absolutely binding thereby, but requiresa moral unanimity, and a subsequent receptfon bythe Church." Nay, I considered that the Pope coulddefine without either majority or minority; but that,if he chose to go by the method of a Council, inthat case a moral unanimity was required of its Fa-thers. I say a few lines lower down, waiving thedifficulty altogether, " Our merciful Lord wouldnot care so little for His people ... as to allow theirvisible head and such a large number of Bishops tolead them into error." Pfere Rami&re, in his very kindreview of me in the Etudes Religieuses for February,speaks of the notion of a moral unanimity as a pieceof Gallicanism ; but anyhow it has vanished altogetherfrom theology now, since the Pope, if the Bishops inthe Council, few or many, held back, might define a

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript 195

doctrine without them. A council of Bishops of theworld around him, is only one of the various modes inwhich he exercises his infallibility. The seat of infal-libility is in him, and they are adjuncts. The Pastor-rfEternus says, " Romani Pontifices, prout tempo-rum et rerum conditio suadebat, nunc convocatis cecu-menicis conciliis, aut rogata Ecclesiae per orbem dis-persae sentential, nunc per synodos particulares, nuncaliis, quae Divina suppeditabat Providentia, adhibitisauxiliis, ea tenenda definiverunt, quae sacris Scripturiset Apostolicis Traditionibus consentanea, Deo adju-tore, cognoverant."

Nor have I spoken of a subsequent reception by theChurch as entering into the necessary conditions of ade fide decision. I said that by the u Securus judicatorbis terrarum " all acts of the rulers of the Church are" ratified," p. 128. In this passage of my private let-ter I meant by " ratified " brought home to us as au-thentic. At this very moment it is certainly the handy,obvious, and serviceable argument for our acceptingthe Vatican definition of the Pope's Infallibility.

Supr. p. 131. I said in my first edition, p. 131, thatthe definition at Ephesus seemed to be carried by 124votes against Hi; as this was professedly only aninference of my own, I have withdrawn it. Con-fining myself to the facts of the history, which areperplexed, I observe: —- The Council was openedby St. Cyril on June 22 of the qurrent year,without waiting for the Bishops representing thegreat Syrian patriarchate, who were a few days' jour-ney from Ephesus, in spite of the protest on that

Digitized by VjOOQIC

196 Postscript

account of 68 of the Bishops already there. The num-bers present at the opening are given in the Acts asabout 150. The first Session in which Nestorius wascondemned and a definition or exposition of faith made,was concluded before night. That exposition, as far asthe Acts record, was contained in one of the letters ofSt. Cyril to Nestorius, which the Bishops in the Coun-cil one by one accepted as conformable to Apostolicteaching. Whether a further letter of St. Cyril's withhis 12 anathematisms, which was also received by theBishops, was actually accepted by them as theirdogmatic utterance, is uncertain ; though the Bishopsdistinctly tell the Pope and the Emperor that theyhave accepted it as well as the others, as being inaccordance with the Catholic Creed. At the endof the Acts of the first Session the signatures ofabout 200 Bishops are found, and writers of theday confirm this number, though there is nothing toshow that the additional 40 or 50 were added on theday on which the definition was passed, June 22, andit is more probable that they were added afterwards;vid. Tillemont, Cyril, note 34, and Fleury, Hist. xxv.42. And thus Tillemont, ibid.y thinks that the signa-tures in favour of Cyril altogether amounted to 220.The Legates of the Pope were not present; but theyhad arrived by July 10. The Syrian Bishops arrived onJune 26th or 27th. As to Africa, then overrun by theVandals, it was represented only by the deacon of theBishop of Carthage, who sent him to make his apolo-gies for Africa, to warn the Council against the Pela-gians, and to testify the adherence of the AfricanChurches to Apostolic doctrine. The countries

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Postscript. 197

which were represented at the Council, and tookpart in the definition were Egypt, Asia Minor,and Thrace, Greece, &c. The whole numberof Bishops in Christendom at the time wasabout 1,800; not 6,000, as St. Dalmatius says at ran-dom. Gibbon says, " The Catholic Church was admin-istered by the spiritual and legal jurisdiction of 1,800bishops, of whom 1,000 were seated in the Greek, and800 in the Latin provinces of the empire." He adds," The numbers are not ascertained by any ancientwriter or original catalogue ; for the partial lists of theeastern churches are comparatively modern. The pa-tient diligence of Charles k S. Paolo, of Luke Hol-stein, and of Bingham, has laboriously investigated allthe episcopal sees of the Catholic Church."

§9.

Su/>ra, pp. 146, etc. It has been objected to the ex-planation I have given from Fessler and others of thenature and range of the Pope's infallibility as now adogma of the Church, that it was a lame and impotentconclusion of the Council, if so much effort was em-ployed, as is involved in the convocation and sitting ofan Ecumenical Council, in order to do so little. True,if it were called to do what it did and no more ; butthat such was its aim is a mere assumption. In the firstplace it can hardly be doubted that there were those inthe Council who were desirous of a stronger definition ;and the definition actually made, as being moderate, isso far the victory of those many bishops who consid-ered any definition on the subject inopportune. And

Digitized by LiOOQIC

198 Postscript

it was no slight fruit of the proceedings in the Council,if a definition was to be, to have effected a moderatedefinition. But the true answer to the objection is thatwhich is given by Bishop Ullathorne. The questionof the Pope's infallibility was not one of the objectsprofessed in convening the Council; and the Council isnot yet ended.

He says in his " Expostulation Unravelled," " Theexpostulation goes on to suggest that the coijncil wasconvened mainly with a view of defining the infalli-bility, and that the definition itself was brought about,chiefly for political objects, through the action of thePontiff and a dominant party. A falser notion couldnot be entertained. I have the official catalogue be-fore me of the Schemata prepared by the theologiansfor discussion in the council. In them the infallibilityis not even mentioned; for the greater part of themregard ecclesiastical discipline/' P. 48, he adds, " Ca-lamitous events suspended the Council."

Supr. p. 151, note. I have referred to BishopFessler's statement that only the. last sentences ofBoniface's Unam Sanctam are infallible. To this Mr.Gladstone replies p. 45, that the word " Porro/'introducing the final words to which the anathemais affixed, extends that anathema to the body ofthe Bull, which precedes the " Porro." But hedoes not seem to have observed that there are twodistinct heresies condemned in the Bull, and that the" Porro" is the connecting link between these twocondemnations, that is, between the penultima aridfinal sentences. The Pope first says " Nisi duo, sicmt

Digitized

by Google V

Postscript. 199

Manichaeus, fingat esse principia, quod fahum etfusreticum judicamus . . . porro, subesse RomanoPontifici, omni humanae creaturae declaramus, defini-mus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitatesalutis." That the Latin is deficient in classical terse-ness and perspicuity we may freely grant.

u Supra, p. 152, I say, "We call ' infallibility' in thecase of the apostles, inspiration ; in the case of thechurch, assistentia."

On this Mr. Gladstone says, " On such a statementI have two remarks to make; first, we have this as-surance on the strength only of his own private judg-ment" p. 102. How can he say so when, p. 153, Iquote Father Perrone, saying, " Never have Catholicstaught that the gift of infallibility is given by God tothe Church after the manner of inspiration ! "

Mr. Gladstone proceeds, " Secondly, that, if biddenby the self-assertion of the Pope, he will be requiredby his principles to retract it, and to assert, if occasionshould arise, the contrary." I can only say to sohypothetical an argument what is laid down by Fesslerand the Swiss bishops, that the Pope cannot, by virtueof his infallibility, reverse what has always been held ;and that the " inspiration " of the church, in the sensein which the Apostles were inspired, is contrary to ourreceived teaching. If Protestants are to speculateabout our future, they should be impartial enough torecollect, that if, on the one hand, we believe that aPope can add to our articles of faith, so, on the other,we hold also that a heretical Pope, ipso facto, ceases tobe Pope by reason of his heresy.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

200 Postscript

Mr. Gladstone thus ends: " Thirdly, that he livesunder a system of development, through which some-body's private opinion of to-day may become matterof faith for all the to-morrows of the future." I thinkhe should give some proof of this; let us have oneinstance in which " somebody's private opinion " hasbecome de fide. Instead of this he goes on to assert(interrogatively) that Popes, e. g., Clement XL andGregory II., and the present Pope, have claimed theinspiration of the Apostles, and that Germans, Italians,French, have ascribed such a gift to him ;—of coursehe means theologians, not mere courtiers or sycophants,for the Pope cannot help having such, till human na-ture is changed. If Mr. Gladstone is merely harangu-ing as an Orator, I do not for an instant quarrel withhim or attempt to encounter him ; but, if he is a con-troversialist, we have a right to look for arguments, notmere assertions.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

DECREES AND CANONS

OP THE

VATICAN COUNCIL.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Digitized by LiOOQIC

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION

ON THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

Pius, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God,with the approval of the sacred council,for Perpetual Remembrance.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, andRedeemer of Mankind, before returning to his heavenlyFather, promised that He would be with the ChurchMilitant on earth all days, even to the consummationof the world. Therefore, He has never ceased to bepresent with His beloved Spouse, to assist her whenteaching, to bless her when at work, and to aid herwhen in danger. And this His salutary providence,which has been constantly displayed by other innumer-able benefits, has been most manifestly proved by theabundant good results which Christendom has derivedfrom (Ecumenical Councils, and particularly from thatof Trent, although it was held in evil times. For, as aconsequence, the sacred doctrines of the faith havebeen defined more closely, and set forth more fully, er-rors have been condemned and restrained, ecclesiasticaldiscipline has been restored and more firmly secured,the love of learning and of piety has been promotedamong the clergy, colleges have been established to

Digitized by LiOOQIC

4 Decrees and Canons

educate youth for the sacred warfare, and the moralsof the Christian world have been renewed by the moreaccurate training of the faithful, and by the more fre-quent use of the sacraments. Moreover, there has re-sulted a closer communion of the members with thevisible head, an increase of vigor in the whole mysticalbody of Christ, the multiplication of religious congrega-tions and of other institutions of Christian piety, andsuch ardour in extending the kingdom of Christthroughout the world, as constantly endures, even tothe sacrifice of life itself

But while we recall with due thankfulness tnese andother signal benefits which the divine mercy has be-stowed on the Church, especially by the last (Ecume-nical Council, we cannot restrain our bitter sorrow forthe grave evils, which are principally due to the factthat the authority of that sacred Synod has been con-temned, or its wise decrees neglected, by many.

No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed bythe Fathers of Trent, by which the divine magisteriumof the Church was rejected, and all matters regardingreligion were surrendered to the judgment of each in-dividual, gradually became dissolved into many sects,which disagreed and contended with one another, untilat length not a few lost all faith in Christ. Even theHoly Scriptures, which had previously been declaredthe sole source and judge of Christian doctrine, beganto be held no longer as divine, but to be ranked amongthe fictions of mythology.

Then there arose, and too widely overspread theworld, that doctrine of rationalism, or naturalism,which opposes itself in every way to the Christian re-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 5

ligion as a supernatural institution, and works with theutmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our sole Lordand Saviour, has been excluded from the minds ofmen, and from the life and moral acts of nations, thereign of what they call pure reason or nature may beestablished. And after forsaking and rejecting theChristian religion, and denying the true God and HisChrist, the minds of many have sunk into the abyss ofPantheism, Materialism, and Atheism, until denyingrational nature itself and every sound rule of right, theylabour to destroy the deepest foundations of humansociety.

Unhappily, it has yet further come to pass that,while this impiety prevailed on every side, many evenof the children of the Catholic Church have strayedfrom the path of true piety, and by the gradual diminu-tion of the truths they held, the Catholic sense becameweakened in them. For, led away by various andstrange doctrines, utterly confusing nature and grace,human science and divine faith, they are found to de-prave the true sense of the doctrines which our HolyMother Church holds and teaches, and endangering theintegrity and the soundness of the faith.

Considering these things, how can the Church fail tobe deeply stirred ? for, even as God wills all men to besaved, and to arrive at the knowledge of the truth;even as Christ came to save what had perished, and togather together the children of God who had been dis-persed, so the Church, constituted by God the motherand teacher of nations, knows its own office as debtorto all, and is ever ready and watchful to raise the fallen,to support those wbg are falling, to embrace thpse wfyo

Digitized by LiOOQIC

6 Decrees and Canons

return, to confirm the good and carry them on to betterthings. Hence, it can never forbear from witnessingto and proclaiming the truth of God, which heals allthings, knowing the words addressed to it: " My Spiritthat is in thee, and my words that I have put in thymouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, from hence-forth and for ever " (Isaias lix. 21).

We, therefore, following the footsteps of our prede-cessors, have never ceased, as becomes our supremeApostolic office, from teaching and defending Catholictruth, and condemning doctrines of error. And now,with the Bishops of the whole world assembled round usand judging with us, congregated by our authority, andin the Holy Spirit, in this (Ecumenical Council, we, sup-ported by the Word of God written and handed downas we received it from the Catholic Church, preservedwith sacredness and set forth according to truth,—havedetermined to profess and declare the salutary teachingof Christ from this Chair of Peter and in sight of all,proscribing and condemning, by the power given us ofGod, all errors contrary thereto

CHAPTER I.

OF GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS.

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believesand confesses that there is one true and living God,Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty,Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intel-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 7

ligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one,sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual sub-stance, is to be declared as really and essentially dis-tinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and fromHimself, and ineffably exalted above all things whichexist, or are conceivable, except Himself.

This one only true God, of His own goodness andalmighty power, not for the increase or acquirement ofHis own happiness, but to manifest His perfection bythe blessings which He bestows on creatures, and withabsolute freedom of counsel, created out of nothing,from the very first beginning of time, both the spiritualand the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelical and themundane and afterwards the human creature, as par-taking, in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and ofbody.

God protects and governs by His Providence allthings which He hath made, " reaching from end toend mightily, and ordering all things sweetly " (Wisdomviii. 1). For " all things are bare and open to Hiseyes " (Heb. iv. 13), even those which are yet to be bythe free action of creatures.

CHAPTER II.OF REVELATION

The same Holy Mother Church holds and teachesthat God, the beginning and end of all things, may becertainly known by the natural light of human reason,

Digitized by LiOOQIC

8 Decrees and Canons

by means of created things; " for the invisible thingsof Him from the creation of the woild are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made M (Ro-mans i. 20), but that it pleased His wisdom and bountyto repeat Himself, and the eternal decrees of His will,to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as theApostle says, " God, having spoken on divers occasions,and many ways, in times past, to the fathers by theprophets; last of all, in these days, hath spoken to usby His Son 9} (Hebrews i. 1, 2).

It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation, thatsuch truths among things divine as of themselves arenot beyond human reason, can, even in the presentcondition of mankind, be known by every one withfacility, with firm assurance, and with no admixture oferror. This, however, is not the reason why revelationis to be called absolutely necessary; but because Godof His infinite goodness has ordained man to a super-natural end, viz: to be a sharer of divine blessingswhich utterly exceed the intelligence of the humanmind : for " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neitherhath it entered into the heart of man, what things Godhath prepared for them that love Him " (1 Cor ii. 9).

Further, this supernatural revelation, according tothe universal belief of the Church, declared by theSacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the writtenbooks and unwritten traditions which have come downto us, having been received by the Apostles from themouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles them-selves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have beentransmitted, as it were, from hand to hand. And theseDooks of the Old and New Testament are to be received

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 9

as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all theirparts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the saidCouncil, and are contained in the ancient Latin editionof the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacredand canonical not because, having been carefully com-posed by mere human industry, they were afterwardsapproved by her authority, nor merely because theycontain revelation, with no admixture of error, but be-cause, having been written by the inspiration of theHoly Ghost, they have God for their author, and havebeen delivered as such to the Church herself.

And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trentdecreed for the good of souls concerning the interpreta-tion of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebelliousspirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We,renewing the said decree, declare this to be theirsense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertain-ing to the building up of Christian doctrine, this is tobe held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which ourHoly Mother Church hath held and holds, to whom itbelongs to judge of the true sense and interpretationof the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is per-mitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture con-trary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unani-mous consent of the Fathers.

CHAPTER III.

ON FAITH.

Man being wholly dependent upon God, as uponhis Creator and Lord; and created reason being abso-

Digitized by LiOOQIC

io Decrees and Canons

lutely subject to uncreated truth, we are bound to yieldto God, by faith in His revelation, the full obedienceof our intelligence and will. And the Catholic Churchteaches that this faith, which is the beginning of man'ssalvation, is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspiredand assisted by the grace of God, we believe that thethings which He has revealed are true; not becauseof the intrinsic truth of the things, viewed by thenatural light of reason, but because of the authority ofGod Himself who reveals them, and Who can neitherbe deceived nor deceive. For faith, as the Apostletestifies, is " the substance of things hoped for, theconviction of things that appear not" (Hebrews i. n).

Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faithmight be in harmony witkreason, God willed that to theinterior help of the Holy Spirit, there should be joinedexterior proofs of His revelation ; to wit, divine facts,and especially miracles and prophecies, which, as theymanifestly display the omnipotence and infinite know-ledge of God, are most certain proofs of His divinerevelation, adapted to the intelligence of all men.Wherefore, both Moses and the Prophets, and mostespecially, Christ our Lord Himself, showed forthmany and most evident miracles and prophecies; andof the Apostles we read : " But they going forthpreached everywhere, the Lord working withal, andconfirming the word with signs that followed " (Markxvi. 20). And again, it is written: " We have themore firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well toattend, as to a light shining in a dark place " (2 St.Peter i. 19).

But though the assent of faith is by no means a

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 11

blind action of the mind, still no man can assent to theGospel teaching, as is necessary to obtain salvation,without the illumination and inspiration of the HolySpirit, who gives to all men sweetness in assenting toand believing in the truth. Wherefore, Faith itself,even when it does not work by charity, is in itself agift of God, and the act of faith is a work appertainingto salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedienceto God Himself, by assenting to and co-operating withHis grace, which he is able to resist.

Further, all those things are to be believed withdivine and Catholic faith which are contained in theWord of God, written or handed down, and which theChurch, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordi-nary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief, ashaving been divinely revealed.

And since, without faith, it is impossible to pleaseGod, and to attain to the fellowship of his children,therefore without faith no one has ever attained justi-fication, nor will any one attain eternal life, unless heshall have persevered in faith unto the end. And, thatwe may be able to satisfy the obligation of embracingthe true faith and of constantly persevering in it, Godhas instituted the Church through His only begottenSon, and has bestowed on it manifest notes of thatinstitution, that it may be recognized by all men as theguardian and teacher of the revealed Word ; for to theCatholic Church alone belong all those many and ad-mirable tokens which have been divinely establishedfor the evident credibility of the Christian Faith. Nay,more, the Church by itself, with its marvellous exten-sion, its eminent holiness, and its inexhaustible fruit-

Digitized by VjOOQ IC

12 Decrees and Canons

fulness in every good thing, with its Catholic unity andits invincible stability, is a great and perpetual motiveof credibility, and an irrefutable witness of its owndivine mission.

And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations(Isaias xi. 12), it both invites itself to those who donot yet believe, and assures its children that the faithwhich they profess rests on the most firm foundation.And its testimony is efficaciously supported by apower from on high. For our most merciful Lordgives His grace to stir up and to aid those who areastray, that they may come to a knowledge of thetruth ; and to those whom He has brought out of dark-ness into His own admirable light He gives His graceto strengthen them to persevere in that light, desertingnone who desert not Him. Therefore there is no paritybetween the condition of those who have adhered tothe Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, andof those who, led by human opinions, follow a false re-ligion ; for those who have received the faith under themagisterium of the Church can never have any justcause for changing or doubting that faith. " There-fore, giving thanks to God the Father who has madeus worthy to be partakers of the lot of the Saints inlight, let us not neglect so great salvation, but with oureyes fixed on Jesus, the author and finisher of ourFaith, let us hold fast the confession of our hope with-out wavering" (Hebr. xii. 2, and x. 23).

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 13

CHAPTER IV.

OF FAITH AND REASON.

The Catholic Church, with one consent, has alsoever held and does hold that there is a twofold orderof knowledge, distinct both in principle and also inobject; in principle, because our knowledge in the oneis by natural reason, and in the other by divine faith ;in object, because, besides those things to which natu-ral reason can attain, there are proposed to our beliefmysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely re-vealed, cannot be known. Wherefore the Apostle,who testifies that God is known by the gentilesthrough created things, still when discoursing of thegrace and truth which come by Jesus Christ (John i.17) says : " We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained beforethe world unto our glory; which none of the princesof this world knew . . . but to us God hath re-vealed them by His Spirit. For the Spirit searchethall things, yea, the deep things of God M (1 Cor. ii. 7-9).And the only-begotten Son himself gives thanks to theFather, because He has hid these things from the wiseand prudent, and has revealed them to little ones (Matt,xi. 25).

Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeksearnestly, piously, and calmly, attains by a gift fromGod some, and that a very fruitful, understanding ofmysteries; partly from the analogy of those thingswhich it naturally knows, partly from the relations

Digitized by LiOOQIC

14 Decrees and Canons

which the mysteries bear to one another and to the lastend of man; but reason never becomes capable of ap-prehending mysteries as it does those truths whichconstitute its proper object. For the divine mysteriesby their own nature so far transcend the created in-telligence that, even when delivered by revelation andreceived by faith, they remain covered with the vail offaith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of dark-ness, so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, notyet with God; " for we walk by faith and not by sight"(2 Cor. v. 7).

But although faith is above reason, there can neverbe any real discrepancy between faith and reason, sincethe same God who reveals mysteries and infuses*faithhas bestowed the light of reason on the human mind,and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever con-tradict truth. The false appearance* of such a contra-diction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith nothaving been understood and expounded according tothe mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinionhaving been taken for the verdicts of reason. We de-fine, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truthof enlightened faith is utterly false.* Further, theChurch, which, together with the Apostolic office ofteachings, has received a charge to guard the depositof faith, derives from God the right and the duty ofproscribing false science, lest any should be deceivedby philosophy and vain fallacy (Coloss. ii. 8). There-

* From the Bull of Pope Leo X., Apostolici regiminis, read in theVIII. Session of the Fifth Lateran Council, a.d. 1513. See Labbe'iCouncils, vol. xix., p. 842, Venice, 1732.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 15

fore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to de-fend, as legitimate conclusions of science, such opinionsas are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith,especially if they have been condemned by the Church,but are altogether bound to account them as errorswhich put on the fallacious appearance of truth.

And not only can faith and reason never be opposedto one another, but they are of mutual aid one to theother; for right reason demonstrates the foundationsof faith, and, enlightened by its light, cultivates thescience of things divine; while faith frees and guardsreason from errors, and furnishes it with manifoldknowledge. So far, therefore, is the Church from op-posing the cultivation of human arts and sciences, thatit in many ways helps and promotes it. For the Churchneither ignores nor despises the benefits to human lifewhich result from the arts and sciences, but confessesthat, as they came from God, the Lord of all science,so, if they be rightly used, they lead to God by thehelp of His grace. Nor does the Church forbid thateach of these sciences in its sphere should make use ofits own principles and its own method; but, while re-cognising this just liberty, it stands watchfully on guard,lest sciences, setting themselves against the divineteaching, or transgressing their own limits, should in-vade and disturb the domain of faith.

For the doctrine of faith which God hath revealedhas not been proposed, like a philosophical invention,to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been de-livered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, tobe faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence also,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be

Digitized by VjOOQIC

16 Decrees and Canons

retained which our Holy Mother the Church has oncedeclared; nor is that meaning ever to be departedfrom, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper com-prehension of them. Let, then, the intelligence, scienceand wisdom of each and all, of individuals and of thewhole Church, in all ages and all times, increase andflourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its ownproper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doc-trine, one and the same sense, one and the same judg-ment (Vincent, of Lerins, Common, n. 28).

CANONS.

I.

Of God, the Creator of all things.

1. If any one shall deny One true God, Creatorand Lord of things visible and invisible ; let him beanathema.

2. If any one shall be not ashamed to affirm that,except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that the substance and es-sence of God and of all things is one and the same ; lethim be anathema.

4. If any one shall say that finite things, both cor-poreal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanatedfrom the divine substance; or that the divine essenceby the manifestation and evolution of itself becomesall things; or, lastly, that God is universal or indefinite

Digitized by LiOOQIC

being, which by determining itself constitutes the uni-versality of things, distinct according to general speciesand individuals ; let him be anathema.

5. If any one confess not that the world, and allthings which are contained in it, both spiritual and ma-terial, have been, in their whole substance, producedby God out of nothing; or shall say that God created,not by His will, free from all necessity, but by anecessity equal to the necessity whereby he loves Him-self; or shall deny that the world was made for theglory of God; let him be anathema.

II.

Of Revelation.

1. If any one shall say that the One True God, ourCreator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by thenatural light of human reason through created things;let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that it is impossible or inex-pedient that man should be taught, by divine revela-tion, concerning God and the worship to be paid toHim; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that man cannot be raised bydivine power to a higher than natural knowledge andperfection, but can and ought, by a continuous progress,to arrive at length, of himself, to the possession of allthat is true and good ; let him be anathema.

4. If any one shall not receive as sacred and canoni-cal the Books of Holy Scripture, entire with all theirparts, as the Holy Synod of Trent has enumerated

Digitized by LiOOQIC

18 of the Vatican Council.

them, or shall deny that they have been divinely in-spired ; let him be anathema.

III.

Of Faith.

1. If any one shall say that human reason is so in-dependent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it byGod ; let him be anathema.

2. If any one shall say that divine faith is not dis-tinguished from natural knowledge of God and of moraltruths, and therefore that it is not requisite for divinefaith that revealed truth be believed because of theauthority of God, Who reveals it; let him be anathema.

3. If any one shall say that divine revelation cannotbe made credible by outward signs, and therefore thatmen ought to be moved to faith solely by the internalexperience of each, or by private inspiration ; let himbe anathema.

4. If any one shall say that miracles are impossible,and therefore that all the accounts regarding them,even, those contained in Holy Scripture, are to bedismissed as fabulous or mythical; or that miraclescan never be known with certainty, and that the divineorigin of Christianity cannot be proved by them ; lethim be anathema.

5. If any one shall say that the assent of Christianfaith is not a free act, but inevitably produced by thearguments of human reason ; or that the grace of Godis necessary for that living faith only which worketh bycharity ; let him be anathema.

6. If any one shall say that the condition of the

Digitized by LiOOQIC

faithful, and of those who have not yet attained to theonly true faith, is on a par, so that Catholics may havejust cause for doubting, with suspended assent, thefaith which they have already received under themagisterium of the Church, until they shall have ob-tained a scientific demonstration of the credibility andtruth of their faith; let him be anathema.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

20 Decrees and Canons

First Dogmatic Constitution

ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

Published in the Fourth Session of the Holy OecumenicalCouncil of the Vatican.

PIUS, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD,WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SACRED COUNCIL,FOR AN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE.

The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, inorder to continue for all time the life-giving work ofHis Redemption, determined to build up the HolyChurch, wherein, as in the House of the living God,all who believe might be united in the bond of onefaith and one charity. Wherefore, before He enteredinto His glory, He prayed unto the Father, not for theApostles only, but for those also who through theirpreaching should come to believe in him, that all mightbe one even as He the Son and the Father are one.*As then He sent the Apostles whom he had chosen toHimself from the World, as He Himself had been sentby the Father; so He willed that there should ever bepastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the

* St. John xvii. 21.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 21

world. And in order that the Episcopate also mightbe one and undivided, and that by means of a closely-united priesthood the multitude of the faithful mightbe kept secure in the oneness of faith and communion,He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the Apostles, andfixed in him the abiding principle of this two-foldunity, and its visible foundation, in the strength ofwhich the everlasting temple should arise and theChurch in the firmness of that faith should lift hermajestic front to heaven. And seeing that the gatesof hell with daily increase of hatred are gathering theirstrength on every side to upheave the foundation laid byGod's own hand, and so, if that might be, to overthrowthe Church ; We, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with theapproval of the Sacred Council, do judge it to be neces-sary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all thefaithful, in accordance with the ancient and constantfaith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching theinstitution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apos-tolic Primacy, in which is found the strength andsolidity of the entire Church, and at the same time toprescribe and condemn the contrary errors, so hurtfulto the flock of Christ.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE APOSTOLIC PRIMACYIN BLESSED PETER.

We therefore teach and declare that, according tothe testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction

Digitized by LiOOQIC

22 Decrees and Canons

over the universal Church of God was immediately anddirectly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apos-tle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, towhom He had already said: Thou shalt be called Ce-phas,* that the Lord after the confession made by him,saying: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,addressed those solemn words : Blessed art thou, SimonBar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed itto thee, but my Father who is in Heaven. And I sayto thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I willbuild my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevailagainst it. And I will give to thee the keys of thekingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bindupon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and what-soever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed alsoin heaven.f And it was upon Simon alone that Jesusafter His resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction ofChief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words:Feed my lambs: feed my sheep.J At open variancewith this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it hasbeen ever understood by the Catholic Church are theperverse opinions of those who, while they distort theform of government established by Christ the Lord inHis Church, deny that Peter in his single person, pre-ferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken sepa-rately or together, was endowed by Christ with a trueand proper primacy of jurisdiction ; or of those who as-sert that the same primacy was not bestowed imme-diately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, butupon the Church, and through the Church on Peter asher Minister.

* St. John i. 4a. f St. Matthew xvi. 16-19. \ St. John xxi. 15-17*

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 25

If any one, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peterthe Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all theApostles and the visible Head of the whole ChurchMilitant; or that the same directly and immediatelyreceived from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ a pri-macy of honour only, and not of true and proper juris-diction ; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE PRIMACY OF BLESSEDPETER IN THE ROMAN PONTIFFS.

That which the Prince of Shepherds and greatShepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, estab-lished in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter tosecure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of theChurch, must, by the same institution, necessarily re-main unceasingly in the Church; which, being foundedupon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.For rfone can doubt, and it is known to all ages, thatthe holy and Blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of theApostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of theCatholic Church, received the keys of the kingdomfrom Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Re-deemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, tothis day and always, in his successors the Bishops of theHoly See of Rome, which was founded by him, andconsecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeedsto Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ

Digitized by LiOOQIC

24 Decrees and Canons

Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the wholeChurch. The disposition made by Incarnate Truththerefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding throughthe strength of the Rock in the power that he received,has not abandoned the direction of the Church.Wherefore it has at all times been necessary that everyparticular Church—that is to say, the faithful through-out the world—should agree with the Roman Church,on account of the greater authority of the princedomwhich this has received ; that all being associated inthe unity of that See whence the rights of communionspread to all might grow together as members of oneHead in the compact unity of the body.

If, then, any should deny that it is by the institu-tion of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Bless-ed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors inthe Primacy over the Universal Church, or that theRoman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter inthis primacy; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE POWER AND NATURE OF THE PRIMACY OF1 THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sa-cred Writings, and adhering to the plain and expressdecrees both of our predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs,and of the General Councils, We renew the definitionof the (Ecumenical Council of Florence, in virtue of

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council 25

which all the faithful of Christ must believe that theHoly Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possessesthe primacy over the whole world, and that the RomanPontiff is the successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of theApostles, and is true Vicar of Christ, and Head of thewhole Church, and Father and Teacher of all Chris-tians ; and that full power was given to him in BlessedPeter to rule, feed, and govern the Universal Churchby Jesus Christ our Lord ; as is also contained in theacts of the General Councils and in the Sacred Canons.

Hence we teach and declare that by the appoint-ment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a supe-riority <5f ordinary power over all other Churches, andthat this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff,which is truly episcopal, is immediate ; to which all, ofwhatever rite or dignity, both pastors and faithful,both individually and collectively, are bound, by theirduty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience,to submit, not only in matters which belong to faithand morals, but also in those that appertain to the dis-cipline and government of the Church throughout theworld, so that the Church of Christ may be one flockunder one supreme pastor through the preservation ofunity both of communion and of profession of the samefaith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching ofCatholic truth, from which no one can deviate withoutloss of faith and of salvation.

But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontifffrom being any prejudice to the ordinary and immedi-ate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which Bishops,who have been sent by the Holy Ghost to succeed andhold the place of the Apostles, feed and govern, each

Digitized by LiOOQIC

26 Decrees and Canons

his own flock, as true Pastors, that this their episcopalauthority is really asserted, strengthened and protectedby the supreme and universal Pastor; in accordancewith the words of St. Gregory the Great: my honouris the honour of the whole Church, My honour is thefirm strength of my brethren. I am truly honoured,when the honour due to each and all is not withheld.Further, from this supreme power possessed by theRoman Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it fol-lows that he has the right of free communication withthe Pastors of the whole Church, and with their flocks,that these may be taught and ruled by him in the wayof salvation. Wherefore we condemn and reject theopinions of those who hold that the communicationbetween this Supreme Head and the Pastors and theirflocks can lawfully be impeded ; or who make this com-munication subject to the will of the secular power, soas to maintain that whatever is done by the ApostolicSee, or by its authority, for the government of theChurch, cannot have force or value unless it be con-firmed by the assent of the secular power. And sinceby the divine right of Apostolic primacy, the RomanPontiff is placed over the Universal Church, we furtherteach and declare that he is the supreme judge of thefaithful, and that in all causes the decision of whichbelongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tri-bunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of theApostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater,nor can any lawfully review its judgment.* Whereforethey err from the right course who assert that it is law-

* From Letter viii. of Pope Nicholas I., A.D. 858, to the EmperorMichael, in Labbe's Councils, vol. ix. pp. 1339 and 1570.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 27

ful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pon-tiffs to an CEcumenical Council as to an authorityhigher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff hasthe office merely of inspection or direction, and not fulland supreme power of jurisdiction over the UniversalChurch, not only in things which belong to faith andmorals, but also in those which relate to the disciplineand government of the Church spread throughout theworld ; or assert that he possesses merely the principalpart, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; orthat this power which he enjoys is not ordinary andimmediate, both over each and all the Churches andover each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let himbe anathema.

CHAPTER IV

CONCERNING THE INFALLIBLE TEACHING OF THEROMAN PONTIFF.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching isalso included in the Apostolic primacy, which theRoman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of theApostles, possesses over the whole Church, this HolySee has always held, the perpetual practice of theChurch confirms, and CEcumenical Councils also havedeclared, especially those in which the East with theWest met in the union of faith and charity. For theFathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, fol-lowing in the footsteps of their predecessors, gave

Digitized by LiOOQIC

28 Decrees and Canons

forth this solemn profession: The first condition ofsalvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. Andbecause the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannotbe passed by, who said : Thou art Peter, and uponthis Rock I will build my Church,* these things whichhave been said are approved by events, because in theApostolic See the Catholic religion and her holy andwell-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled.Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree sepa-rated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hopethat we may deserve to be in the one communion,which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is theentire and true solidity of the Christian religion* And,with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, theGreeks professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoyssupreme and full Primacy and pre-eminence over thewhole Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly ac-knowledges that it has received with the plenitude ofpower from our Lord Himself in the person of theblessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whosesuccessor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the ApostolicSee is bound before all others to defend the truth offaith, so also if any questions regarding faith shall arise,they must be defined by its judgment. Finally, theCouncil of Florence defined: That the Roman Pontiffis the true Vicar of Christ, and the Head of the wholeChurch, and the Father and Teacher of all Christians;and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by ourLord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling andgoverning the whole Church (John xxi. 15-17)

* St Matthew xvi. 18.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 29

To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors evermade unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine ofChrist might be propagated among all the nations ofthe earth, and with equal care watched that it mightbe preserved genuine and pure where it had been re-ceived. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world,now singly, now assembled in synod, following thelong established custom of Churches, and the form ofthe ancient rule, sent word to the Apostolic See ofthose dangers especially which sprang up in matters offaith, that there the losses of faith might be most effec-tually repaired where the faith cannot fail. And theRoman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of timesand circumstances, sometimes assembling (EcumenicalCouncils, or asking for the mind of the Church scatter-ed throughout the world, sometimes by particularsynods, sometimes using other helps which DivineProvidence supplied, defined as to be held those thingswhich with the help of God they had recognized asconformable with the Sacred Scriptures and ApostolicTraditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised tothe successors of Peter that by His revelation theymight make known new doctrine, but that by His as-sistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully ex-pound the revelation or deposit of faith deliveredthrough the Apostles. And indeed all the venerableFathers have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctorshave venerated and followed their Apostolic doctrine;knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remainsever free from all blemish of error according to thedivine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to thePrince of His disciples: I have prayed for thee that

Digitized by LiOOQIC

30 Decrees and Canons

thy faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, con-firm thy brethren.*

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith wasconferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors inthis Chair, that they might perform their high officefor the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ,kept away by them from the poisonous food of error,might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doc-trine ; that the occasion of schism being removed fromthe whole Church, it might be kept one, and, restingon its foundation, might stand firm against the gatesof hell.

But since in this very age, in which the salutaryefficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required,not a few are found who take away from its authority,we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert theprerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouch-safed to join with the supreme pastoral office.

Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition re-ceived from the beginning of the Christian faith, forthe glory of God Our Saviour, the exaltation of theCatholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian peo-ple, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and de-fine that it is a dogma divinely revealed : that the Ro-man Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathcdrd, that is, whenin discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of allChristians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authori-ty he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to beheld by the Universal Church, by the divine assistancepromised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that

• St. Luke xxii. 3a. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council,A.D. 680.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

of the Vatican Council. 31

infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed thatHis Church should be endowed for defining doctrineregarding faith or morals: and that therefore such de-finitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of them-selves, and not from the consent of the Church.

But if any one—which may God avert—presume tocontradict this Our definition; let him be anathema.

Given at Rome in Public Session solemnly held in theVatican Basilica in the year of Our Lord one thou-sand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenthday of July, in the twenty-fifth year of our Pontifi-cate.

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Digitized by LiOOQIC

y

Digitized by LiOOQIC

aiowiM?*'

1

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Digitized by LiOOQIC

Table of Contents

A letter addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on occasion of Mr. Gladstone's recent expostulation