CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 FROM THE INCOME 
 
 OF A BEQUEST 
 
 MADE BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 1854-1919 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://archive.org/details/cu31924029359332 
 
Contents 
 
 MaMYim^. The Vatican Council avt<l '.ts de^inHio*ts. tilO. 
 Gilddsttfuc, The Va.tica>i decriJes iniliaV bearing en civii 
 
 Ma«ri<Mo-, The Vit-fcican decrees in -theif beafmg on eivU 
 allegiance. ISIS". 
 
 Nevill-s. A few coynvnettts oh /Ic. filaotstonfi's eKfoS'tulation. 
 
 isnr. 
 
 A/ewwan. A letter adiressed to f<!s Grrace theDi/ke of Norfolk 
 > Oh occasion of Mr. (Jla^istoBes »'«c<f»»t «^_ 
 
 pp&t(jlat:iovi. IST5T 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL 
 
 l^e. 
 
LONDON: PBlNTKi) BF 
 
 SP0msV7OODB AND CO., NEW- HTJtKJi r B(iUAKE 
 
 AND PAELIAMBKT STIIHKT 
 
THE YATIOAN COUNCIL 
 
 AND ITS DEFINITIONS: 
 
 A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CLERGY 
 
 HENRY EDWARD 
 ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTEE. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO. 
 
 1870. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The World and the Council. 
 
 External history of the Council, 2 ; The alleged indifference to 
 the Council, 13 ; Internal history, 24 ; Protest of tlie Cardinal 
 Presidents, 33 ; Definition by acclamation, 36 ; Definitions 
 binding on all the faithful, 39. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Two Constitutions. 
 
 Analysis of the Constitution De Fide CathoHca, 43 ; Preparation 
 for the definition of the Infallibility of the Eoman Pontiff, 51 ; 
 Analysis of the First Constitution on the Church of Christ, 54 ; 
 Six points of the definition of Infallibility, 57. 
 
 I. Meaning of the phrase loqui ex cathedrd, 58. 
 
 II. Faith and morals the object of Infallibility, 59 ; Five points 
 of the Charter of the Church: 1. The perpetuity and universality 
 of the mission of the Church as a Teacher of mankind. 2. The 
 deposit of the Divine Faith and Law entrusted to the Church. 
 §. The Church the sole interpreter of the Faith and of the Law. 
 4. The Church the sole Divine Judge over the reason and wiU of 
 man. 5. The Perpetual Presence of our Lord with the Church, 
 59. The doctrinal authority of the Church not confined to 
 matters of revelation, 67 ; Truths of Science, 67 ; Truths of 
 History, 68 ; Dogmatic Facts, 68, 69 ; Minor censures, 73. 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 III. The efficient cause of Infallibility, 79 ; Witness of St. 
 Ambrose, a.d. 397, 79 ; Witness of St. John Chrysostom, a.d. 
 407, 80 ; Witness of St. Augustine, a.d. 430, 80 ; Witness of St. 
 Cyril, A.D. 444, 80; Witness of St. Leo, a.d. 460, 81; Witness 
 of St. Gelasius, a.d. 496, 81 ; Witness of Pelagius II., a.d. 
 590, 81; Witness of St. Gregory the Great, a.d. 604, 82; 
 Witness of Stephanus Dorensis, a.d. 649, 82 ; Witness of St. 
 Vitalian, a.d. 669, 83. 
 
 IV. The Acts to which the divine assistance is attached, 86. 
 
 v. The extension of the Infallible authority to the limits of the 
 doctrinal office of the Church, 90. 
 
 VI. The dogmatic value of Pontificial acta ex bathedrd, 91. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Terminology of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 
 
 Personal, 94, 112; Independent, 97,113; Separate, 98, 1 13 ; 
 Absolute, 102, 113. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Scientific History and the Catholic Rule of Faith. 
 
 Evidence of history, and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, 
 114; Cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the Roman 
 Pontiff undiminished by historical doubts, 116 ; Difficulties of 
 human history, 119; The German Bishops at Fulda, 120; 
 Heretical assumptions of 'scientific history,' 126; History im- 
 properly called a science, 131 ; Definition of science, 131 ; ' 
 Theology only improprie a science, 133; Modern Gnosticism, 
 135. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Result of the Definition. 
 
 Bishops witnesses of the objective faith of the Church, 139 • 
 Tradition of England, 140 ; Sir Thomas More, 141 ; Cardinal 
 Fisher, 142 ; Cardinal Pole, 142 ; Harding, 143 ; Campian, 144 ; 
 Nicholas Sanders, 145 ; Kellison, 145 ; Southwell, 147 ; Alban 
 Butler, 148 ; Charles Plowden, 149 ; Bishop Hay, 151 ; Bishop 
 Milner, 151 ; Predicted disasters irom the Definition, 152. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 I. The Latin Postulatum of the BiBhops for the Definition of the 
 
 Infallibility, 163; English Translation of the same, 167. 
 
 II. Letter of H. E. Cardinal Antonelli to Count Darn, 173. 
 
 III. Protest of the Cardinal Presidents, 181. 
 
 IV. Constitutio De Fide Catholica, 182 ; Translation of the same, 
 
 192 ; Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi, 204 ; 
 Translation of the same, 211. 
 
 V. Eules laid down by Theologians for Doctrinal Definitions, 220. 
 
 VI. The Case of Honorius ; Note of the Archbishop of Baltimore 
 on the question of Honorius, 223. 
 
 VII. Letter of the Grerman Bishops on the Council, 225. 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL 
 
 AND 
 
 ITS DEFINITIONS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 the wobld and the council. 
 
 Reverend and deak Brethren, 
 
 From the opening of the Council until the' 
 close of the Fourth Public Session, when leave was 
 given to the Bishops to return for a time to their 
 flocks, I thought it my duty to keep silent. It 
 was not indeed easy to refrain from contradicting 
 the manifold errors and falsehoods by which the 
 Council has been assailed. But it seemed for many 
 reasons to be a higher duty, to wait until the 
 work in which we were engaged should be accom- 
 plished. That time is now happily come : and the 
 obligation which would have hitherto forbidden the 
 utterance of much that I might have desired to say 
 has been by supreme authority removed. 
 
 To you therefore, Reverend and dear Brethren, I 
 at once proceed to make known in mere outline the 
 chief events of this first period of the Council of the 
 Vatican. 
 
2 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 I shall confine what I have to say to the three 
 following heads :— First, to a narrative of certain facts 
 external to the Council, but affecting the estimate of 
 its character and acts; secondly, to an appreciation 
 of the internal spirit and action of the Council; and 
 thirdly, to a brief statement of the two dogmatic 
 Constitutions published in its third and fourth 
 Sessions. 
 
 First, as to the external history of the Council. 
 As yet, no narrative, or official account of its pro- 
 ceedings, has been possible. The whole world, Cath- 
 olic and Protestant, has been therefore compelled to 
 depend chiefly upon newspapers. And as these power- 
 fully preoccupy and prejudice the minds of men, I 
 thought it my duty, during the eight months in 
 which I was a close and constant witness of the 
 procedure and acts of the Council, to keep pace with 
 the histories and representations made by the press 
 in Italy, Germany, France, and England. This, 
 by the watchful care of others in England and in 
 Eome, I was enabled to do. In answer to an in- 
 quiry from this country as to what was to be be- 
 lieved respecting the Council, I considered it my 
 duty to reply : ' Read carefully the correspondence 
 from Rome published in England, believe the reverse, 
 and you will not be far from the truth.' I am sorry 
 to be compelled to say that this is, above all, true 
 of our own journals. Whether the amusing blun- 
 ders and persistent misrepresentations were to be 
 charged to the account of ill will, or of want of com- 
 mon knowledge, it was often not easy to say. Two 
 things however were obvious. The journals of 
 
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 3 
 
 Catholic countries, perverse and hostile as they might 
 be, rarely if ever made themselves ridiculous. They 
 wrote with great bitterness and animosity : but with 
 a point which showed that they understood what 
 they were perverting; and that they had obtained 
 their knowledge from sources which could only have 
 been opened to them by violation of dut3^ Their 
 narratives of events which were passing under my 
 own eyes, day by day, were so near the truth, and yet 
 so far from it, so literally accurate, but so abso- 
 lutely false, that for the first time I learned to under- 
 stand Paolo Sarpi's ' History of the Council of Trent :' 
 and foresaw how perhaps, from among nominal 
 Catholics, another Paolo Sarpi will arise to write the 
 History of the Council of the Vatican. But none of 
 this applies to our own country. I am the less dis- 
 posed to charge these misrepresentations, in the case 
 of English correspondents, to the account of ill will, 
 though they abundantly showed the inborn animosity 
 of an anti-Catholic tradition, because neither corres- 
 pondents nor journalists ever willingly expose them- 
 selves to be laughed at. I therefore put it down to 
 the obvious reason that when English Protestants un- 
 dertake to write of an Oecumenical Council of the 
 Catholic Church, nothing less than a miracle could 
 preserve them from making themselves ridiculous. 
 This, I am sorry to know, for the fair name of our 
 country, has been the effect produced by English 
 newspapers upon foreign countries. Latterly, how- 
 ever, they seemed to have learned prudence, and to 
 have relied no longer on correspondents who, hardly 
 knowing the name, nature, use, or purpose of anything 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 about which they had to write, were at the mercy 
 of such informants as English travellers meet at a 
 table-d'hote in Rome. Then appeared paragraphs 
 without date or place, duly translated, as we discov- 
 ered by comparing them, from Italian and German 
 newspapers. They were less amusing, but they were 
 even more misleading. By way of preface, I will 
 give the estimate of two distinguished Bishops, who 
 are beyond suspicion, as to the truthfulness of one 
 notorious journal. 
 
 Of all the foreign sources from which the English 
 newspapers drew their inspiration, the chief, perhaps, 
 was the ' Augsburg Gazette.' This paper has many 
 titles to special consideration. The infamous matter 
 of Janus first appeared in it under the form of articles. 
 During the Council, it had in Rome at least one 
 English contributor. Its letters on the Council have 
 been translated into English and published by a Pro- 
 testant bookseller, in a volume by Quirinus. 
 
 I refrain from giving my own estimate of the book, 
 until I have first given the judgment of a distin- 
 guished Bishop of Germany, one of the minority 
 opposed to the definition, whose cause the 'Augsburg 
 Gazette ' professed to serve. 
 
 Bishop Von Ketteler, of Mayence, publicly pro- 
 tested against ' the systematic dishonesty of the cor- 
 respondent of the "Augsburg Gazette." ' ' It is a pure 
 invention,' he adds, ' that the Bishops named in that 
 journal declared that Dollinger represented, as to the 
 substance of the question (of infallibility), the opinions 
 of a majority of the German Bishops. ' And this, he 
 said, ' is not an isolated error, but part of a system 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 5 
 
 which consists in the daring attempt to pubhsh false 
 news, with the object of deceiving the German public, 
 according to a plan concerted beforehand.' . . . ' It 
 will be necessary one day to expose in all their 
 nakedness and abject mendacity the articles of the 
 " Augsburg Gazette." They will present a formid- 
 able and lasting testimony to the extent of injustice 
 of which party men, who affect the semblance of supe- 
 rior education, have been guilty against the Church.' * 
 Again, at a later date, the Bishop of Mayence 
 found it necessary to address to his Diocese another 
 public protest against the inventions of the 'Augs- 
 burg Gazette.' 'The " Augsburg Gazette," ' he says, 
 ' hardly ever pronounces my name without appending 
 to it a falsehood.' * It would have been easy for us 
 to prove that every Roman letter of the " Augsburg 
 Gazette " contains gross perversions and untruths. 
 Whoever is conversant with the state of things here, 
 and reads these letters, cannot doubt an instant that 
 these errors are voluntary, and are part of a concerted 
 system designed to deceive the public. If time fails 
 me to correct publicly this uninterrupted series of 
 falsehoods, it is impossible for me to keep silence 
 when an attempt is made, with so much perfidy, to 
 misrepresent my own convictions. ' f 
 
 * The Vatican, March 4, 1870, p. 145. 
 
 t The Vatican, June 17, 1870, p. 319. ' The Archbishop of 
 Cologne has condemned a pretended Catholic journal in which the 
 dogma of the Infallibility is attacked, and the proceedings of the 
 Council misrepresented and vilified. The sentence of the Archbishop 
 on this matter derives the greater weight from the fact of his having, 
 as he states, formed part of the minority in the memorable vote of 
 July 13. The Arehbishop says : " The clergy of this Diocese are 
 
6 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Again, Bishop Hefele, commenting on the Roman 
 correspondents of the ' Augsburg Gazette ' says : ' It 
 is evident that there are people, not Bishops, but 
 
 aware that a weekly paper, the Rheinischer Merkur, constantly 
 attacks, in an odious manner, and with ignoble weapons, the Holy 
 Church, in the person of its lawful chiefs the Pope and the Bishops, 
 and in its highest representative the (Ecumenical Council ; so that 
 men's minds are disturbed, and the hearts of the faithful alienated 
 from the Church. It also openly advocates the abolition,, by the 
 secular authority, of the Church's liberty and independence. I 
 therefore hold it to be my duty, in discharge of my pastoral office, 
 to expose the anti-Catholic character of the said paper; not because 
 I regard it as of any greater importance than those other more noisy 
 organs of the press which are the exponents of hatred against 
 religion, but simply because the paper above-named pretends to be 
 Catholic. It is on that account that, as Catholic Bishop of this city, 
 I feel called upon to denounce the falsehood of the assumption of the 
 name of Catholic by a journal which is labouring to overthrow the 
 unity of the Church by separating Catholics from that rock on which 
 she is founded. This declaration is also due from me to those my 
 Eight Reverend Brethren in the Episcopate who belonged with me 
 to the minority in the Council. The journal in question assumes 
 to be the exponent of the sentiments of that minority, but it never 
 was in any way, directly or indirectly, recognised by it or any of its 
 members ; it has been, on the contrary, repeatedly blamed and 
 denounced. Wherefore I exhort all the Eev. Clergy of the Arch- 
 diocese to be mindfiil of their duty as sons of the Catholic Church ; 
 and not countenance in any way whatsoever, either by taking it in 
 or reading it, the journal above-named, which outrages our holy 
 Mother, rejects her authority, and desires to see her enslaved. I 
 also exhort you on all fitting occasions to warn your flock» of the 
 dangerous and anti-Catholic character of that journal, so that they 
 may be^ dissuaded from buying or reading it, and may escape being 
 deluded by its errors. I had resolved to order an instruction to be 
 given from the pulpit upon the more recent decisions of the Council, 
 and especially upon the infallible teaching of the Pope, and tc 
 explain therein the true sense of the Dogma ; and thus to remove the 
 prejudices that have been raised against it, as if it were a nove] 
 doctrine or one in contradiction to the end of the Church's con- 
 stitution, or to sound reason ; and to meet generally the objections 
 raised against the validity of the Council's decision." ' 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 7 
 
 having relations with the Council, who are not re- 
 strained by duty and conscience.' * We had reason to 
 believe that the names of these people, both German 
 and English, were well known to us. 
 
 Now the testimony of the Bishop of Mayence, a^ to 
 the falsehoods of these correspondents respecting 
 Rome and Germany, I can confirm by my testimony 
 as to their treatment of matters relating to Rome and 
 England. I do not think there is a mention of my 
 own name without, as the Bishop of Mayence says, 
 the appendage of a falsehood. The whole tissue of the 
 correspondence is false. Even the truths it narrates 
 are falsified : and through this discoloured medium 
 the English people, by the help of Quirinus and the 
 ' Saturday Review,' gaze and are misled. 
 
 To relieve this graver aspect of the subject, I will 
 add a few livelier exploits of our English correspond- 
 ents. On January 14, an English journal announced 
 that the Bishops were unable to speak Latin ; and 
 that Cardinal Altieri (who laid down his life for his 
 flock in the cholera three years ago), in whose rooms 
 the Bishops met, ' was beside himself.' ' What is 
 there,' the correspondent of another paper asked, ' in 
 seven hundred old men dressed in white, and wearing 
 tall paper caps?' 'The Oriental Bishops,' he says, 
 ' refused to wear white mitres : ' reasonably', because 
 they never wear them. ' The Bishop of Thun at- 
 tacked the Bishop of Sura with a violence which 
 threatened personal collision.' There is no Bishop of 
 Thun. The same paper, July 7, says, ' I was posi- 
 tively shocked, yesterday, at finding that the Roman 
 * The Vatican, March 4, 1870, p. 145. 
 
O THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Catholic Hierarchy of my own country is a sham ; at 
 least, so far as regards its territorial and independent 
 pretensions. Every one of them, including the 
 Archbishop, is in charge of a Vicar Apostolic, Cardi- 
 nal Maddalena, titular Archbishop of Corfu, within 
 whose diocese, it would appear, our island is situated.' 
 This has more foundation in fact than the other state- 
 ments, for until the Archbishop of Corfu could find 
 a carriage, we used daily to go together to the Council. 
 A leading journal, in May last, announced : ' At a 
 recent sitting of the Council, Cardinal Schwarzenberg 
 made a speech which created even a greater uproar 
 than the former one of Bishop Strossmayer.' In this 
 speech he defended Protesl^ants with such vigour 
 that ' the presiding Legate, Cardinal De Angelis, 
 interrupted the speaker, and a warm dispute between 
 the two Cardinals ensued. The President strove 
 repeatedly, but in vain, to silence the Cardinal with 
 his bell : and at length the Bishops drowned his protest 
 in a storm of hisses, in the midst of which the Car- 
 dinal was carried from the tribune, half fainting with 
 excitement, to his seat.' The Cardinal was indeed 
 called to order, but no such tragedy was ever acted. 
 ' The Papal authorities,' says another journal, ' have 
 housed the Bishops with discriminating hospitality. 
 Those who could not be absolutely trusted have 
 been lodged with safe companions, in the propor- 
 tion of one weak brother to half-a-dozen strong.' 
 'The Jesuits have had the manipulation of the 
 flock and have done it well.' The distribution of 
 the Bishops was made by the Government, and 
 months before the Council opened, with as much 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 9 
 
 theological manipulation as the filling of a train 
 from Paddington. Again, we hear on May 17, 
 that ' Cardinal Bilio, the Prefect of the Depu- 
 tation for Dogma, and author of the Syllabus, has 
 passed over to the opposition.' When the Holy 
 Father heard of this defection ' he was seized with 
 faintness,' and told the Cardinal ' to go on a tour for 
 the benefit of his health.' The ' Times ' at last con- 
 fessed : ' To find out the truth of what is going on 
 .... is diflicult beyond conception.' . . . ' Every 
 day, even every hour, brings up its story, .... 
 which, in nine cases out of ten, will prove an in- 
 genious hoax.' Therefore nine-tenths of these his- 
 tories are labelled ' hoaxes.' The ' Times ' adds : 
 ' To pick one's way amidst these snares, without 
 becoming the victims of delusions, is what no man 
 can feel quite sure of.' A warning of which I hope 
 the readers of newspapers will fully avail themselves. 
 The ' Standard,' wiser than its fellows, said in Feb- 
 ruary : ' It is a thousand pities that English corre- 
 spondents should childishly swallow cock-and-bull 
 stories of what never did and never could have 
 occurred in the Council, and thus damage their own 
 reputation for accuracy, as well as inferentially that 
 of their colleagues.' 
 
 Another journal damaged something more than its 
 reputation for accuracy, when, after having announced 
 that the Roman Clergy, that is, the Parish Priests of 
 Rome, had, all but eight, declined to petition in 
 favour of the definition, it was again and again called 
 upon to publish the fact that the Roman Clergy 
 unanimously petitioned for the definition, in a form 
 
10 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 SO explicit that the Clergy of England and Scotland 
 afterwards adopted it as their own and presented it 
 to the Holy Father. The newspaper in question was 
 never pleased to insert the correction. 
 But these are flowers plucked at random. 
 I will now endeavour to give shortly a more con- 
 nected outline of the Vatican Council, as drawn by 
 the newspapers of the last eight or nine months ; and 
 as their representations will be one day read up as 
 contemporaneous records for a future history, I wish to 
 leave in the Archives of the Diocese a contemporane- 
 ous record of their utter worthlessness, and, for the 
 most part, of their utter falsehood. 
 
 As the highest point attracts the storm, so the 
 chief violence fell upon the head of the Vicar of 
 Jesus Christ. On this I shall say nothing. Pos- 
 terity will know Pius the Ninth ; and the world 
 already knows him now too well to remember, except 
 with sorrow and disgust, the language of his enemies. 
 ' If they have called the master of the house Beelze- 
 bub, how much more them of his household ? ' No 
 one has this privilege above the Vicar of the Master; 
 and it is a great joy and distinct source of strength 
 and confidence to all of the household to share this 
 sign, which never fails to mark those who are on His 
 side against the world. 
 
 The Council was composed, at first, of 767 Fathers. 
 We were told that their very faces were such as to 
 compel an enlightened correspondent, at the first 
 sight of them, to lament ' that the spiritual welfare of 
 the world should be committed to such men.' 
 
 Then, by a wonderful disposition of things, for the 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 11 
 
 good, no doubt, of the human race, and above all of 
 the Church itself, the Council was divided into 
 a majority and a minority: and, by an even more 
 beneficent and admirable provision, it was so ordered 
 that the theology, philosophy, science, culture, in- 
 tellectual power, logical acumen, eloquence, candour, 
 nobleness of mind, independence of spirit, courage, 
 and elevation of character in the Council, were all to be 
 found in the minority. The majority was naturally 
 a Dead Sea of superstition, narrowness, shallowness, 
 ignorance, prejudice ; without theology, philosophy, 
 science, or eloquence ; gathered from ' old Catholic 
 countries;' bigoted, tyrannical, deaf to reason; with 
 a herd of ' Curial and Italian Prelates,' and mere 
 ' Vicars Apostolic' 
 
 The Cardinal Presidents were men of imperious 
 and overbearing character, who by violent ringing of 
 bells and intemperate interruptions cut short the 
 calm and inexorable logic of the minority. 
 
 But the conduct of the majority was still more 
 overbearing. By violent outcries, menacing gestures, 
 and clamorous manifestations round the tribune, they 
 drowned the thrilling eloquence of the minority, and 
 compelled unanswerable orators to descend. 
 
 Not satisfied with this, the majority, under the pre- 
 text that the method of conducting the discussions 
 was imperfect, obtained from the supreme authority a 
 new regulation, by which all liberty of discussion was 
 finally taken from the noble few who were struggling 
 to redeem the Council and the Church from bondage. 
 
 From that date the non-oecumenicity of the Council 
 was no longer doubtful. Indeed, ' Janus ' had told 
 
12 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the world in many tongues, long before it met, that 
 the Council would not be free. Nevertheless, the 
 minority persevered with heroic courage, logic which 
 nothing could resist, and eloquence which electrified 
 the most insensible, until a tyrannous majority, deaf 
 to reason and incapable of argument, cut discussion 
 short by an arbitrary exercise of power ; and so 
 silenced the only voices nobly lifted up for science, 
 candour, and common sense. 
 
 This done, the definition of new dogmas became 
 inevitable, and the antagonism between the ultra- 
 romanism of a party and the progress of modern 
 society, between independence and servility, became 
 complete. 
 
 Such is the history of the Council written ah extra 
 in the last nine months. I believe that every epithet 
 I have given may be verified in the mass of extracts 
 now before me. 
 
 A leading English journal, ten days after the Defini- 
 tion of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, with great 
 simplicity observed, ' It is curious to compare the very 
 general and deep interest taken by all intelligent ob- 
 servers in the early deliberations of the Council with 
 the equally mai'ked indifference to the culmination 
 of its labours. Every rumour that came from Rome 
 six or seven months ago was canvassed with great 
 eagerness, even by men who cared little for ordinary 
 theological disputations: while the proclamation of 
 the astonishing dogma of papal infallibility has pro- 
 duced in any but ecclesiastical circles little beyond a 
 certain amount of perfunctory criticism.' 
 
 The main cause of this contrast isj of course, 
 
THE WOKT.D AND THE COUl-fCIL. 13 
 
 not far to seek. The writer proceeds to assign the 
 cause, and in so doing passes at once, with a gravity 
 befitting the occasion, to a disquisition on Sir Wil- 
 liam Hamilton's theory of perception, and on ' the 
 gigantic gooseberry.' 
 
 Such is the earnestness and the sincerity with which 
 English journals, even of high repute, have treated 
 the subject of the CEcumenical Council. 
 
 Let me, also, assign the cause why the un-Catholic 
 and anti-Catholic world took so clamorous an interest 
 in the opening of the Council, and in the end affected 
 so ill-sustained a tone of indifference. I know of no 
 public event in our day the explanation of which is 
 more transparent and self-evident. It is this. 
 
 When the Council assembled, it was both hoped and 
 believed that the ' Roman Curia ' and the ' Ultramon- 
 tane party ' would be checked and brought under by 
 the decisions of the Bishops. A controversy had been 
 waged against what was termed ' Ultramontanism,' or 
 ' Ultra-Catholicism,' or ' Ultra-Romanism,' in Ger- 
 many, France, and England. When I last addressed 
 you I used the following words, which I now repeat, 
 because I can find none more exact. They have 
 been fulfilled to the very letter. 
 
 ' Facts like these give a certain warrant to the as- 
 sertions and prophecies of politicians and Protestants. 
 They prove that in the Catholic Church there is a 
 school at variance with the doctrinal teaching of the 
 Holy See in matters which are not of faith. But they 
 do not reveal how small that school is. Its centre 
 would seem to be at Munich ; it has, both in France 
 and in England, a small number of adherents. They 
 
14 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 are active, they correspond, and, for tlie most part, 
 write anonymously. It would be difficult to describe 
 its tenets, for none of its followers seem to be agreed 
 in all points. Some hold the infallibility of the Pope, 
 and some defend the Temporal Power. Nothing 
 ajDpears to be common to all, except an animus of 
 opposition to the acts of the Holy See in matters out- 
 side the faith. 
 
 ' In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was 
 made to render impossible, as it was confidently but 
 vainly thought, the definition of the infallibility of the 
 Pontiff, by reviving the monotonous controversy 
 about Pope Honorius. Later we were told of I know 
 not what combination of exalted personages in France 
 for the same end. It is certain that these symptoms 
 are not sporadic and disconnected, but in mutual un- 
 derstanding, and with a common purpose. The anti- 
 Catholic press has eagerly encouraged this school of 
 thought. If a Catholic can be found out of tune with 
 authority by half a note, he is at once extolled for 
 unequalled authority and irrefragable logic. The 
 anti-Catholic journals are at his service, and he vents 
 his opposition to the common opinions of the Church 
 by writing against them anonymously. Sad as this 
 is, it is not formidable. It has effect almost alone 
 upon those who are not Catholic. Upon Catholics its 
 effect is hardly appreciable ; on the theological Schools 
 of the Church, it, will have little influence; upon the 
 Ecumenical Council it can have none.' * 
 
 Many publications had appeared in French, Eng- 
 
 * Pastoral on ' Tlie CEcumenical Council, 1869,' &c. pp. 132, 
 133. 
 
lisL., and German, from which it became evident that 
 a common purpose and plan of co-operation had been 
 formed. Certain notorious letters published in France, 
 and the infamous book ' Janiis,' translated into Eng- 
 lish, French, and Italian, proclaimed open war upon 
 the Council within the unity of the Catholic Church. 
 This alone was enough, to set the whole anti-Catholic 
 world on fire -with curiosity, hope, and delight. The 
 learning, the science of the intellectual freemen of 
 the Roman Church were already under arms to re- 
 duce the pretensions of Rome. 
 
 A belief had also spread itself that the Council 
 would explain away the doctrines of Trent, or give 
 them some new or laxer meaning, or throw open some 
 questions supposed to be closed, or come to a compro- 
 mise or transaction with other religious systems; or at 
 least that it would accommodate the dogmatic stiffness 
 of its traditions to modern thought and modern theo- 
 logy. It is strange that any one should have forgotten 
 that every General Council, from Nicfea to Trent, which 
 has touched on the faith, has made new definitions, 
 and that every new definition is a new dogma, and 
 closes what was before open, and ties up more 
 strictly the doctrines of faith. This belief, however, 
 excited an expectation, mixed with hopes, that Rome 
 by becoming comprehensive might become approach- 
 able, or by becoming inconsistent might become 
 powerless over the reason and the will of men. 
 
 But the interest excited by this preliminary skir- 
 mishing external to the Council, was nothing com- 
 pared to the exultation with which the anti-Catholic 
 opinion and anti-Catholic press of Protestant countries, 
 
16 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 and the anti-Koman opinion and press even of Cath- 
 olic countries, beheld, as they believed, the formation 
 of an organised ' international opposition ' of more 
 than a hundred Bishops within the Council itself. 
 The day was come at last. What the world could 
 not do against Rome from without, its own Bishops 
 were going to do against Rome, and in the world's 
 service, from within. I shall hereafter show how 
 little the world knew the Bishops whom it wronged 
 by its adulation, and damaged by its praise. They 
 were the favourites of the world, because they were 
 believed to be fighting the Pope. In a moment, all 
 the world rose up to meet them. Governments, 
 politicians, newspapers, schismatical, heretical, in- 
 fidel, Jewish, revolutionary, as with one unerring 
 instinct, united in extolling and setting forth the 
 virtue, learning, science, eloquence, nobleness, heroism 
 of this ' international opposition.' With an iteration 
 truly Homeric, certain epithets were perpetually 
 linked to certain names. All who were against Rome 
 were written up ; all who were for Rome were written 
 down. The public eye and ear of all countries were 
 filled, and taught to associate all that is noble and 
 great with ' the international opposition;' all that is 
 neither noble nor great, not to say more, with others. 
 The interest was thus wrought up to the highest 
 pitch; and a confident expectation was raised, and 
 spread abroad, that the Council would be unable to 
 make a definition, and that Rome would be defeated. 
 I can hardly conceive a keener or more vivid motive 
 of interest to the anti-Catholic world than this. For 
 this cause Rome was full of correspondents, ' our 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 17 
 
 own,' ' our special,' and ' our occasional.' Private 
 persons forsook great interests and duties, to reside 
 in Rome for the support of the ' international opposi- 
 tion.' A league of newspapers, fed from a common 
 centre, diffused hope and confidence in all countries, 
 that the science and enlightenment of the minority 
 would save the Catholic Church from the immoder- 
 ate pretensions of Rome, and the superstitious ignor- 
 ance of the universal Episcopate. Day after day, the 
 newspapers teemed with the achievements and ora- 
 tions of the opposition. The World believed that it 
 had found its own in the heart of the Episcopate, 
 and loved it as its own. There was nothing it 
 might not hope for, expect, and predict. In truth, 
 it is no wonder that a very intense interest should 
 be excited in minds hostile to Rome by such a spec- 
 tacle as the outer world then believed itself to see. 
 And such, we may safely affirm, were the chief mo- 
 tives of its feverish excitement, at the opening and 
 during the early period of the Council. 
 
 But how shall we account for the indifference with 
 which the World affects to treat its close ? 
 
 By two very obvious reasons. First, because it 
 became gradually certain that the World had not 
 found its own in the Council ; and that the ' opposition ' 
 on which it counted were not the servants of the 
 World, but Bishops of the Catholic Church, who, 
 while using all freedom which the Church abundantly 
 gave them, would in heart, mind, and will, remain 
 faithful to its divine authority and voice. And 
 secondly, because it became equally certain, indeed 
 was self-evident, that no opposition, from without or 
 
 c 
 
18 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 from within, could move the Council a hair's breadth 
 out of the course in which it was calmly and iiTe- 
 sistibly moving to its appointed work. 
 
 The hopes and confidence of the miscellaneous 
 alliance of nominal Catholics, Protestants, rational- 
 ists, and unbelievers, received its first sharp check 
 when some five hundred Fathers of the Council de- 
 sired of the Holy See that the doctrine of the Infalli- 
 bility of the Roman Pontiff" should be defined.* This 
 event manifested a mind and a will so united and so 
 decisive, as to reduce the proportions of the oppo- 
 sition, both numerically and morally, to very little. 
 Still it was confidently hoped that some event, in the 
 chapter of accidents, might yet hinder the definition ; 
 that either the minority might become more power- 
 ful by increase, or the majority less solid by division. 
 
 This expectation again was rudely shaken by the 
 unanimous vote of the third public Session. The 
 first Constitution De Fide had been so vehemently 
 assailed, and, as it was imagined, so utterly defeated, 
 that if ever voted at all it would be voted only by a 
 small majority, or at least it would be resisted by 
 an imposing minority. It was therefore no small 
 surprise that the whole Council, consisting then of 664 
 Fathers, should have affirmed it with an unanimous 
 vote. I well remember that when the ' Placets ' of the 
 ' opposition leaders ' sounded through the Council 
 Hall, certain high diplomatic personages looked signifi- 
 cantly at each other. This majestic unanimity, after 
 the alleged internal contentions of the Council, was as 
 perplexing as it was undeniable. The World began 
 to fear that, after all, the international opposition 
 * See Appendix, p. 1G3. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 19 
 
 would neither serve its purposes nor do its work. A 
 sensible change of tone was then perceived. The cor- 
 respondents wrote of everything but of this unanimity. 
 The newspapers became almost silent. The leading 
 articles almost ceased. From that time they ex- 
 changed the tone of confidence and triumph for a 
 tone of irritation and of no little bitterness. 
 
 Nevertheless, a new hope arose. Governments 
 were acted upon to make representations, and all but 
 to menace the Holy Father.* For a time, confidence 
 revived. It was thought impossible that the joint 
 note of so many Powers, and the joint influence of so 
 many diplomatists, could fail of their effect. It did 
 not seem to occur to those who invoked the inter- 
 ference of the Civil Powers that they were thereby en- 
 deavouring to deprive the Council of its liberty : which, 
 in those who were complaining, in all languages, that 
 the Council was not free, involved a self-contradiction 
 on which I need not comment. Neither did they seem 
 to remember that those who invoke the secular power 
 against the spiritual authority of the Church, whether 
 to defeat a sentence already given, or to prevent the 
 delivery of such a sentence, are ipso facto excommuni- 
 cate, and that their case is reserved to the Pope.f This, 
 
 * See Appendix, p. 173. 
 
 ■{■ Apjjellantes seu 7-ecurrentes ad curiam smmlarem ah ordina- 
 tionihus alicujiis judicis ecclesiastici excommunicationem incurrunt 
 Papte reservatum ex cap. 16 Bullse In Coma Domini, sive illi 
 judices ecclesiastici sint ordinarii sive delegati, ut patet in eadem 
 Bulla: et multi dicunt hoc procedere, etiamsi sic appellantes et 
 recurrentes nulla decreta poenalia aut inhibitiones contra eosdem 
 judices ecclesiasticos obtineant ; alii tamen contrarium tenent. 
 Vide interpretes super dicta Bulla cap. 19, etBonacinarfe Censur. in 
 pai'tic. disp. 1, q. 17, punct. 1, num. 28, qui auctore-s pro utraqne parte 
 
 c2 
 
20 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 which applies to any ordinary ecclesiastical judge in 
 matters of law, surely applies in an eminent degree to 
 an (Ecumenical Council in matters of faith. Be this 
 as it may, for a time the interest of the World was re- 
 awakened by the hope that Rome would be in some 
 way baffled after all. 
 
 But this hope also was doomed to disappointment. 
 The distribution by the Cardinal Presidents of the 
 Additamentum, or additional chapter on the doctrine 
 of Infallibility; the introduction of the Schema de 
 Romano Pontifice before the Schema de Ecclesia; 
 the closing of the general discussion by a vote of 
 the Council ; all alike showed that the Council knew 
 its own mind, and was resolved to do its duty. It 
 became unmistakably clear how few were in oppo- 
 sition; and equally certain that, when the defini- 
 tion should be completed, all opposition would cease. 
 The interest in the Council, manifested by the anti- 
 Catholic World, at once collapsed. The correspond- 
 ents became silent, or only found reasons why no- 
 body cared any longer for the Council. A period of 
 supercilious disdain followed; and then the corre- 
 spondents of the English journals, one by one, left 
 Rome. The game was played out : and the last hope 
 of an intestine conflict in the Church was over. A 
 
 allegat. Et continet etiam judices seculares, qui ea occasione 
 decernunt contra dictos judioes ecclesiasticos, et eos qui ilia 
 decreta exequuntur ; et continet dantes consilium, patrocinium, et 
 favorem in eisdem, ut patet ex eadem Bulla. 
 
 In hac materia vide plures poenas infra verb. Curia, c. 8, et verb. 
 Jurisdictio, et procedit etiam in tacita, seu anticipata appellatione ad 
 procurandum impediri futuras ordinationes judicii ecclesiastici, ut 
 Bonac. num. 23, juxta probabiliorem. — Giraldus de Painis Eccl. 
 pars ii. c. iii. vol. v. p. 96. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 21 
 
 more disappointing end to the high hopes and excited 
 anticipations with which the adversaries of the Cath- 
 olic Church cheered on the opposition at the open- 
 ing of the year, cannot be conceived. They little 
 knew the men whom they were mortifying and dis- 
 honouring by their applause. They forgot that 
 Bishops are not deputies, and that an (Ecumenical 
 Council is not a Parliament.- And when, of the 
 eighty-eight who on the thirteenth of July voted Non 
 placet^ two only repeated their Non placet on the 
 eighteenth, proving thereby that what two could do 
 eighty might have done, the World was silent, and 
 has steadfastly excluded the Constitution De Bo- 
 mano Pontifice from the columns of its newspapers. 
 
 Here is the simple and self-evident reason of this 
 pretended loss of interest in the Council. It is the 
 affected indiiference of those who, having staked their 
 reputation on the issue of a contest, have been 
 thoroughly and hopelessly disappointed. 
 
 Before I conclude this part of the subject, I wUl 
 give one passage as a supreme example of what I 
 have been describing. I take it from the chief 
 newspaper in England. It is from an article evi- 
 dently written by a cultivated and practised hand. 
 It appeared when the definition was seen to be 
 certain and near. It was intended to ruin its eflFects 
 beforehand. The writer could not narrate what had 
 taken place, because it was before the event ; nor what 
 would really take place, because nothing was known : 
 but what he thought would excite contempt, that he 
 pleased to say would take place. Nevertheless, he 
 spoke as if the events were certain, and already so 
 
2-2 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 ordered ; wMch truth forbade : and he taxed his in- 
 genuity to make the Avhole account in the highest de- 
 gree odious or ridiculous ; which revealed his motive. 
 The reader will bear in mind that not one particle of 
 the following elaborate description is true, or had 
 even a shadow of truth. But nobody would perceive 
 the fine verbal distinctions on which the writer 
 would defend himself from a charge of deliberate 
 falsehood. 
 
 On June 8, we read as follows : — 
 
 ' The British public have some reason to regret 
 that the pressure of subjects nearer home, and more 
 directly concerning this country, has put their in- 
 terest in the CEcumenical Council somewhat in abey- 
 ance. A great event is at hand. There can no 
 longer be any doubt that at the approaching Feast 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul, the 29th instant, the 
 priceless blessing of Papal Infallibility will be vouch- 
 safed to the world. The day is the Feast of St. 
 Peter in our Calendar, and it is usually called St. 
 Peter's Day at Eome, the Apostle to the Gentiles 
 having been associated only to disappear. The day 
 is on this occasion to be observed as a day of days, 
 and the era of a new revelation. Fireworks, illu- 
 minations, transparencies, triumphal arches, and all 
 that taste and money can do to demonstrate and 
 delight, are already in hand, and, whoever the guests, 
 the marriage feast is in preparation. . . . An extra- 
 ordinary effort is to be made. Eome is to excel 
 herself in her mimic meteors, her artistic transfigura- 
 tions, her new heavens and new earths, her angelic 
 radiance, her divine glories, and infernal horrors. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 23 
 
 If the Council has been chary of its utterances and 
 coy in its appearances, that will be made up by 
 explosions and spectacles of a more intelligible cha- 
 racter. We can promise that it will be worth many 
 miles of excursion trains to go and see. The Cam- 
 pagna will be deserted, that all the Pope's temporal 
 lieges may be there in their picturesque costumes. 
 They and the astonished strangers will there see 
 with their own eyes the Pope of Rome, the actual 
 successor of St. Peter, invested with absolute autho- 
 rity over all souls, hearts, and minds. They will see 
 him welcoming the faithful " Placets," and consigning 
 the " Non-Placets " to the flames of a Tartarean abyss. 
 They will see hideous forms, snakes, dragons, hydras, 
 centipedes, toads, and nondescript monsters under 
 the feet, or the lance, or the thunderbolt of conquer- 
 ing Rome ; and they will not fail to recognise in 
 them the Church of England, the Protestant com- 
 munities, and the German philosophers. It will be 
 a grand day, and great things will be done on that 
 29th of June. "We will not believe it possible that 
 a single mishap will disturb the sacred programme 
 — that the lightnings may miss their aim, or the 
 Powers of Darkness prevail. We cannot doubt 
 all will go off well, for the simple reason that all is 
 ready and forecasted, down to the very Dogma. 
 Artists of surpassing skill and taste are working 
 hard on the upholstery of the Divine manifestation, 
 not knowing whether to think it a blasphemy or a 
 good joke. It is their poverty and not their will 
 that consents to the task. As we see the illumina- 
 tions expiring, the Roman candles lost in smoke, 
 
24 THE VATICAN COUNCII,. 
 
 and the exhibitors taking the old properties back to 
 the vast magazines of Rome, we cannot help thinking 
 of the poor fathers put off with glare and noise in 
 place of conviction or peace of mind. Think of poor 
 MacHale exhausting in vain his logic, his learning, 
 a7id his powerful style, and taking back to his poor 
 flock on the Atlantic shore a strange story of 
 Chinese lanterns, fiery bouquets, showers of gold, 
 and transparencies more striking even than the illus- 
 trations of our prophetic almanacks.' 
 
 When it is borne in mind that the definition of 
 the Infallibility of the Head of the Christian Church , 
 is a subject of deep religious faith to the most culti- 
 vated nations of the world, and that a fifth part of 
 the population of our three kingdoms was profoundly 
 interested in the subject, I shall not refrain from 
 saying that this article from the leading newspaper 
 of England has as little decency as truth. 
 
 I will now endeavour briefly to sketch the outline 
 of the Council as viewed from within. As I was 
 enabled to attend, with the exception of about three 
 or four days, every Session of the Council, eighty- 
 nine in number, from the opening to the close, I can 
 give testimony, not upon hearsay, but as a personal 
 witness of what I narrate. 
 
 Cardinal Pallavicini, after relating the contests and 
 jealousies of the Orators of Cathohc States assembled 
 in the Council of Trent, goes on to say that to con- 
 voke a General Council, except when absolutely de- 
 manded by necessity, is to tempt God.* I well 
 
 * Hist. Cone. Trid. lib. xvi. c. 10, torn. ii. p. 800. Antwerp, 
 1670. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 25 
 
 remember, at the time of the centenary of St. Peter's 
 Martyrdom, when the Holy Father first announced 
 his intention to convene the General Council, one of 
 the oldest and most experienced of foreign diploma- 
 tists expressed to me his great alarm. He predicted 
 exactly what came to pass in the beginning of the 
 Council. His diplomatic foresight fully appreciated 
 the political dangers. They were certainly obvious 
 and grave ; for no one perhaps, at that time, could an- 
 ticipate the majestic unity and firmness of the Council, 
 which exceeded all hopes, and has eiFectually dispelled 
 all fears. 
 
 For three hundred years, the Church dispersed 
 throughout the world has been in contact with the 
 corrupt civilisation of old Catholic countries, and with 
 the anti-Catholic civilisation of countries in open 
 schism. The intellectual traditions of nearly all 
 nations have been departing steadily from the unity of 
 the Faith and of the Church. In most countries, 
 public opinion has become formally hostile to the 
 Catholic religion. The minds of Catholics have been 
 much affected by the atmosphere in which they live. 
 It was to be feared and to be expected that the 
 Bishops of all the world, differing so widely in race, 
 political institutions, and intellectual habits, might 
 have imported into the Council elements of divergence, 
 if not of irreconcilable division. Some had indeed 
 met before, at the Canonizations of 1862 or 1867 : but 
 for the most part the Bishops met for the first time. 
 The Pastors of some thirty nations were there, bring- 
 ing together every variety of mental and social culture 
 and experience : but in the midst of this variety there 
 
26 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 reigned a perfect identity of faith. On this, three 
 centuries of separation and divergence in all things of 
 the natural order, had produced no effect. Nothing 
 but the Church of God alone could have lived on 
 immutable through three hundred years of perpetual 
 changes, and under the most potent influences of the 
 world. Nothing has ever more luminously exhibited 
 the supernatural endowments of the Church than the 
 Council of the Vatican. In these three centuries it 
 had passed through revolutions which have dissolved 
 empires, laws, opinions. But the Episcopate of the 
 Catholic Church met again last December in Rome, 
 as it met in Trent, Lyons, or Nicsea. At once it 
 proceeded to its work ; and began as if by instinct, or 
 by the prompt facility of an imperishable experience, 
 to define doctrines of faith and to decree laws of dis- 
 cipline. Such unity of mind and will is above the 
 conditions of human infirmity; it can be traced to 
 one power and guidance alone, the supernatural 
 assistance of the Spirit of Truth, by Whom the 
 Church of God is perpetually sustained in the light 
 and unity of faith. 
 
 To those who were within the Council, this became, 
 day by day, almost evident to sense. It was no di- 
 minution from this, that a certain number were found 
 who were of opinion that it was inopportune to define 
 the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. This was a 
 question of prudence, policy, expedience ; not of doc- 
 trine or of truth. It was thus that the Church was 
 united twenty years ago in the belief of the Immacu- 
 late Conception, while some were still to be found who 
 doubted the prudence of defining it. Setting aside 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 27 
 
 this one question of opporluneness, there was not in the 
 Council of the Vatican a difference of any gravity, 
 and certainly no difference whatsoever on any doctrine 
 of faith. I have never been able to hear of five 
 Bishops who denied the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. 
 Almost all previous Councils were distracted by di- 
 visions, if not by heresy. Here no heresy existed. 
 The question of opportunity was altogether subor- 
 dinate and free. It may truly be affirmed that never 
 was there a greater unanimity than in the Vatican 
 Council. Of this the world had a first evidence in 
 the unanimous vote by which the first Constitution 
 on Faith was affirmed on the 24th of April. 
 
 I should hardly have spoken of the outward con- 
 duct of the Council, if I had not seen, with surprise 
 and indignation, statements purporting to be descrip- 
 tions of scenes of violence and disorder in the course 
 of its discussions. Having from my earliest remem- 
 brance been a witness of public assemblies of all kinds, 
 and especially of those among ourselves, which for 
 gravity and dignity are supposed to exceed all others, 
 I am able and bound to say that I have never seen such 
 calmness, self-respect, mutual forbearance, courtesy 
 and self-control, as in the eighty -nine sessions of the 
 Vatican Council. In a period of nine months, the 
 Cardinal President was compelled to recall the speak- 
 ers to order perhaps twelve or fourteen times. In 
 any other assembly they would have been inexorably 
 recalled to the question sevenfold oftener and sooner. 
 Nothing could exceed the consideration and respect 
 with which this duty was discharged. Occasionally 
 murmurs of dissent were audible ; now and then a 
 
2&. THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 comment may have been made aloud. In a very few 
 instances, and those happily of an exceptional kind, 
 <eKpres8ions of strong disapproval and of exhausted 
 -•patience at length escaped. But the descriptions of 
 ^■iolence, outcries, menace, denunciation, and even of 
 personal collisions, with which certain newspapers 
 deceived the world, I can affirm to be calumnious 
 falsehoods, fabricated to brings the Council into odhim 
 and contempt. That such has been the aim and in- 
 tent of certain journals and their correspondents is 
 undeniable. They at first endeavoured to write it 
 down ; but an CEcumenical Council cannot be written 
 down. Next, they endeavoured to treat it with ridi- 
 cule ; but an (Ecumenical Council cannot be made 
 ridiculous. The good sense of the world forbids it. 
 But it may be made odious and hateful ; and thereby 
 the minds of men may be not only turned from it, 
 but even turned against it. For this in every way 
 the anti-Catholic world has laboured ; and no better 
 plan could be found than to describe its sessions as 
 scenes of indecent clamour and personal violence, 
 unworthy even in laymen, criminal in Bishops of the 
 Church. I have read descriptions of scenes of which 
 I was a personal witness, so absolutely contrary to 
 fact and truth, that I cannot acquit the anonym- 
 ous writer on the plea of error. The animus was 
 manifest, and its effect has been and will be to poison 
 a multitude of minds which the truth will never reach. 
 
 It has beezi loudly declared, that a tyrannical 
 majority deprived the minority of liberty of dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Now it is hard to believe this allegation to be 
 sincere, for many reasons. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 29 
 
 First, there was only one rule for both majority 
 and minority. If either were deprived of liberty, 
 both were ; if both were, it might be unwise, it could 
 not be unjust; but if both were not, then neither. 
 The majority spontaneously and freely imposed upon 
 itself the same conditions it accepted for all. 
 
 But secondly, the mode of conducting the discus- 
 sions afforded the amplest liberty of debate. 
 
 The subject matter was distributed in print to 
 every Bishop, and a period of eight or ten days was 
 given for any observations they might desire to make 
 in writing. 
 
 These observations were carefully examined by 
 the deputation of twenty-four; and when found to be 
 pertinent were admitted, either to modify or to reform 
 the original Schema. 
 
 The text so amended was then proposed for the 
 general discussion, on which every Bishop in the 
 Council had a free right to speak, and the discussions 
 lasted so long as any Bishop was pleased to inscribe 
 his name. 
 
 The only limit upon this freedom of discussion con- 
 sisted in the power of the Presidents, on the petition 
 of ten Bishops, to interrogate the Council whether 
 it desired the discussion to be prolonged. The Presi- 
 dents had no power to close the discussion. The 
 Council alone could put an end to it. This right is 
 essential to every deliberative assembly; which has a 
 two-fold liberty, the one, to listen as long as it shall 
 see fit; the other, to refuse to listen when it shall 
 judge that a subject has been sufficiently discussed. 
 To deny this liberty to the Council is to claim for 
 
30 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 individuals the liberty to force the Council to listen 
 as long as they are pleased either to waste its time or 
 to obstruct its judgment. In political assemblies, the 
 house puts an end to debates by a peremptory and 
 inexorable cry of ' question' or ' divide.' The assem- 
 blies of the Church are of another temper. But they 
 are not deprived of the same essential rights ; and by 
 a free vote they may decide either to listen, or not to 
 listen, as the judgment of the Council shall see fit. 
 To deny this is to deny the liberty of the Council; 
 and under the pretext of liberty to claim a tyranny 
 for the few over the will of the many.* 
 
 Obvious as is this liberty and right of the 
 Council to close its discussions when it shall see 
 fit, there exists only one example on record in which 
 it did so. With exemplary patience it listened 
 to what the House of Commons would have pro- 
 nounced to be interminable discussions and inter- 
 minable speeches. On the general discussion of 
 the Schema De Romano Pontifice some eighty 
 
 * I cannot help here marking a historical parallel. Those who 
 had been invoking the anti-Catholic public opinion, and even the 
 civil governments of all countries, to control the Holy See and the 
 Council, complained of oppression and the violation of their liberty. 
 
 When Napoleon held Pius VII. prisoner at Fontainebleau, and by 
 every form of threat and influence had deprived him of liberty, the 
 following warning was given by Colonel Lagorse to Cardinal Pacca, 
 then in attendance on the Pope : ' That the Emperor was displeased 
 with the Cardinals, for having, ever since their arrival at Fontainebleau, 
 continually restricted the Pope from a condition of free agency;' 
 that provided they were desirous of remaining at Fontainebleau, they 
 must abstain from all manner of interference in matters of busi- 
 ness. . . . Failing in the above conditions, they would expose 
 themselves to the hazard of losing their liberty.' — Memoirs of 
 Cardinal Pacca, vol. ii. p. 192. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL 31 
 
 Bishops had spoken. Of these, nearly half were of 
 what the newspapers called the Opposition ; but the 
 proportion of the Opposition to the Council was not 
 more than one sixth. They had therefore been heard 
 as three to six. But further, there still remained the 
 special discussion on the Prooemium and the four 
 chapters; that is to say, five distinct discussions still 
 remained, in which every Bishop of the six or seven 
 hundred in the Council would, therefore, have a right 
 to speak five times. Most reasonably, then, the 
 Council closed the general discussion, leaving to the 
 Bishops still their undiminished right, if they saw fit, 
 still to speak five times. No one but those who de- 
 sired the discussion never to end, that is, who desired 
 to render the definition impossible by speaking against 
 time, could complain of this most just exercise of its 
 liberty on the part of the Council. I can conscien- 
 tiously declare, that long before the general discussion 
 was closed, all general arguments were exhausted. 
 The special discussion of details also had been to 
 such an extent anticipated, that nothing new was 
 heard for days. The repetition became hard to bear. 
 Then, and not till then, the President, at the petition 
 not of ten, but of a hundred and fifty Bishops at least, 
 interrogated the Council whether it desired to prolong 
 or to close the general discussion. By an over- 
 whelming majority it was closed. When this was 
 closed, still, as I have said, five distinct discussions 
 commenced ; and were continued so long as any one 
 was to be found desirous to speak. Finally, for. the 
 fifth or last discussion, a hundred and twenty inscribed 
 their names to speak. Fifty at least were heard, 
 
32 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 until on both sides the burden became too heavy to 
 bear ; and, by mutual consent, an useless and endless 
 discussion, from sheer exhaustion, ceased. 
 
 ■ So much for the material liberty of the Council. 
 Of the moral liberty it will be enough to say, that 
 the short-hand writers have laid up in its Archives a 
 record of discourses which will show that the liberty 
 of thought and speech was perfectly unchecked. If 
 they were published to the world, the accusation 
 would not be of undue repression. The wonder would 
 be, not that the Opposition failed of its object, but that 
 the Council so long held its peace. Certain Bishops 
 of the freest country in the world said truly : ' The 
 liberty of our Congress is not greater than the liberty 
 of the Council.' When it is borne in mind that out of 
 more than six hundred Bishops, one hundred, at the 
 utmost, were in opposition to their brethren, it seems 
 hardly sincere to talk of the want of liberty. There 
 was but one liberty of which this sixth part of the 
 Council was deprived, a liberty they certainly would 
 be the last to desire, namely, that of destroying the 
 liberty of the other five. The Council bore long with 
 this truthless accusation of politicians, newspapers, and 
 anonymous writers; and never till the last day, when 
 the work in hand was finally complete, except only 
 the voting of the public session, took cognisance of 
 this mendacious pretence. On the 16th of July, after 
 the last votes had been given, and the first Con- 
 stitution De Ecclesia Christi had been finally ap- 
 proved, then for the first time it turned its attention 
 to this attempt upon its authority. Two calumnious 
 libels on the Council had appeared ; the one entitled, 
 
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 33 
 
 Ce qui se passe an Concile, the other, La demise 
 heure du Concile : in both, the liberty of the Yatican 
 Council was denied, with a view to denying its 
 authority. The General Congregation by an im- 
 mense majority adopted the following protest, and 
 condemned these two slanderous pamphlets, thereby 
 placing on record a spontaneous declaration of the 
 absolute freedom of the Council. 
 
 ' Most Reverend Fathers, 
 
 ' From the time that the Holy Vatican Synod 
 opened by the help of God, a most bitter warfare 
 instantly .broke out against it; and in order to 
 diminish its venerable authority with the faithful, 
 and, if it could be, to destroy it altogether, many 
 writers vied with each other in attacking it by 
 contumelious detraction, and by the foulest calum- 
 nies; and that, not only among the heterodox and 
 open enemies of the Cross of Christ, but also among 
 those who give themselves out as sons of the 
 Catholic Church ; and what is most to be deplored, 
 among even its sacred ministers. 
 
 ' The infamous falsehoods which have been heaped 
 together in this matter in public newspapers of every 
 tongue, and in pamphlets without the author's name, 
 published in all places and stealthily distributed, all 
 men well know ; so that we have no need to recount 
 them one by one. But among anonymous pam- 
 phlets of this kind there are two especially, written in 
 French, and entitled, Ce qui se passe au Concile, 
 and La derniere heure du Concile, which for the arts 
 of calumny and the license of detraction bear away 
 
 D 
 
34 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the palm from, all others. For in these not only 
 is the dignity and full liberty of the Council assailed 
 with the basest falsehoods, and the rights of the Holy 
 See overthrown, but even the august person of our 
 Holy Father is attacked with the gravest insults. 
 Wherefore we, being mindful of our office, lest our 
 silence if longer maintained, should be perversely 
 interpreted by men of evil will, are compelled to 
 lift up our voice, and before you all. Most Reverend 
 Fathers, to protest and to declare all such things as 
 have been uttered in the aforesaid newspapers and 
 pamphlets to be altogether false and calumnious, 
 whether in contempt of our Holy Father and of 
 the Apostolic See, or the dishonour of this Holy 
 Synod, and on the score of its asserted want of 
 legitimate liberty. 
 
 'From the Hall of the Council, the 16th day of 
 July, 1870. 
 
 ' Philip, Cardinal De Angelis, President. 
 
 'Antoninus, Cardinal De Luc a. 
 
 ' Andreas, Cardinal Bizzari. 
 
 ' Aloysius, Cardinal Bilio. 
 
 'Hannibal, Cardinal Capalti.'* 
 
 We have thus carried down our narrative to the 
 eve of the Definition, and with one or two general 
 remarks I will conclude this part of the subject. 
 
 A strange accusation has been brought against the 
 Council of the Vatican, or, to speak more truly, against 
 the Head of the Church, who summoned it; namely, 
 that its one object was to define the Infallibility of 
 
 * See Appendix, p. 181. 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 35 
 
 the Pope. With the knowledge I have, in common 
 with a large part of the Episcopate, I am able to give, 
 to this a direct denial. But this denial is not given 
 as if the admission of the charge would be in any way 
 inconsistent with the wisdom, dignity, or duty of the 
 Council. It is simply untrue in fact. Even though 
 it were true, I should have no hesitation in under- 
 taking to show that the Council, if it had been assem- 
 bled chiefly to define the Infallibility of the Roman 
 Pontiff, would have been acting in strict analogy 
 with the practice of the Church in the eighteen 
 (Ecumenical Councils already held. 
 
 Each several Council was convened to extinguish 
 the chief heresy, or to correct the chief evil, of the 
 time. And I do not hesitate to affirm that the 
 denial of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was 
 the chief intellectual or doctrinal error as to faith, 
 not to call it more than proximate to heresy, of our 
 times. 
 
 It was so,becauseitstruck at the certainty of the pon- 
 tifical acts of the last three hundred years ; and weak- 
 ened the effect of pontifical acts at this day over the 
 intellect and conscience of the faithful. It kept alive a 
 dangerous controversy on the subject of Infallibility 
 altogether, and exposed even the Infallibility of the 
 Church itself to difficulties not easy to solve. As an 
 apparently open or disputable point, close to the very 
 root of faith, it exposed even the faith itself to the 
 reach of doubts. 
 
 Next, practically, it was mischievous beyond mea- 
 sure. The divisions and contentions of ' Gallicanism ' 
 and ' Ultramontanism ' have been a scandal and a 
 
 1)2 
 
86 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 shame to us. Protestants and unbelievers have been 
 kept from the truth by our intestine controversies, 
 especially upon a point so high and so intimately 
 connected with the whole doctrinal authority of the 
 Church. 
 
 Again, morally, the division and contention on this 
 point, supposed to be open, has generated more alien- 
 ation, bitterness, and animosity between Pastors and 
 people, and what is worse, between Pastor and Pastor, 
 than any other in our day. Our internal contests 
 proclaimed by Protestant newspapers, and, worse 
 than all, by Catholic also, have been a reproach to us 
 before the whole world. 
 
 It was high time to put an end to this ; and if the 
 Council had been convened for no other purpose, this 
 cause would have been abundantly sufficient ; if it 
 had defined the Infallibility at its outset, it would 
 not have been an hour too soon; and perhaps it would 
 have averted many a scandal we now deplore. But 
 this last I say with submission, for the times and 
 seasons of a Council are put in a power above our 
 reach. 
 
 In the midst of all these graver events and cares, 
 there were, now and then, some things which gave 
 rise to hearty, and I hope harmless, amusement. Of 
 these, one was what may be called the panic fear lest 
 the definition of the Infalhbility of the Pope should 
 suddenly be carried by acclamation ; and the amusing 
 self-gratulation of those who imagined that with great . 
 dexterity and address they had defeated this intention. 
 The acclamation, like the rising of a conspiracy, was 
 to have taken place first on one day, then, being 
 
THE WORLD AND THE COUNCIL. 37 
 
 frustrated, on another. The Feast of the Epiphany was 
 named, then the Feast of St. Joseph, then the Feast 
 of the Annunciation. But by the masterly tactics of 
 certain leaders, this conspiracy could never accom- 
 plish itself. Janus first announced the discovery of 
 the plot. The minds of men from that time, it 
 seems, were haunted with it. They lived in per- 
 petual alarm. They were never safe, they tell us, 
 from a surprise which would create an article of 
 faith before they could protest. I refrain, out of re- 
 spect, from naming the distinguished prelates of 
 whom our anonymous teachers speak so freely, when 
 they affirm that at the first general congregation 
 Papal Infallibility was to be carried by acclamation, 
 but that 'the scheme was foiled by the tact and 
 firmness of ' such an one : and that ' a similar at- 
 tempt was projected for a later day (March 19), 
 when the prompt action of four American prelates 
 again frustrated the design.' * 
 
 Now the truth is, that nobody, so far as my know- 
 ledge reaches, and I believe I may speak with cer- 
 tainty, ever for a moment dreamed of this definition 
 by acclamation. All whom I have ever heard speak 
 of these rumours were unfeignedly amused at them. 
 The last men in the Council who would have desired 
 or consented to an acclamation were those to whom 
 it was imputed ; and that for a reason as clear as day. 
 They had no desire for acclamations, because accla- 
 mations define nothing. They had already had 
 enough of acclamations in the Council of Chalcedon, 
 which cried unanimously, 'Peter hath spoken by 
 
 * Saturday Review, Aug. 2, 1870. 
 
38 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Leo ; ' and in the Council of Constantinople whicL 
 acclaimed, 'Peter hath spoken by Agatho;' and in 
 the address of the five hundred Bishops at the 
 centenary of St. Peter in 1867, in which they 
 unanimously declared that ' Peter had spoken by 
 Pius:' for they well knew that many, even of those 
 who joined most loudly in that acclamation, denied 
 that these words ascribe infallibility to the Successor 
 of Peter. Experience therefore proved, even if 
 theology long ago had not, that an acclamation is 
 not a definition; and that an acclamation leaves the 
 matter as it found it, as disputable after as it was 
 before. Nothing short of a definition would, satisfy 
 either reason or conscience ; and nothing but this was 
 ever for a moment thought of. 
 
 Such, then, is a slight outline of the internal history 
 of this protracted contest. It passed through nine 
 distinct phases : and it must be confessed that they 
 who desired to avert the definition held their suc- 
 cessive positions with no little tenacity. 
 
 The first attack came from the World without, in 
 support of a handful of professors and writers, who 
 denied the truth of the doctrine : the second position 
 was to admit its truth but to deny that it was capable 
 of being defined : the third, to admit that it was de- 
 finable, but to deny the opportuneness of defining it : 
 the fourth, to resist the introduction of the doctrine 
 for discussion : the fifth, to render discussion im- 
 possible by delay : the sixth, to protract the discussion 
 tiU a conclusion should become physically impossible 
 before the summer heats drove the Council to dis- 
 perse : the seventh, when the discussion closed, to 
 
THE WOELD AND THE COUNCIL. 39 
 
 defer the definition to the future : the eighth, after 
 the definition was made, to hinder its promulgation : 
 the ninth — I •will not say the last, for who can tell 
 what may still come? — to afiirm that the definition, 
 though solemnly made, confirmed, and published by the 
 Head of the Church in the Ecumenical Council, and 
 promulgated urbi et orhi according to the traditional 
 usage of the Church, does not bind the conscience of 
 the faithful till the Council is concluded, and sub- 
 scribed by the Bishops. 
 
 This last is the only remnant of the controversy 
 now surviving. I can hardly believe that any one, 
 after the letter of Cardinal Antonelli to the Nunzio 
 at Brussels, can persist in this error. Nevertheless 
 it may be well to add one or two words, which you 
 will anticipate, and well know how to use. 
 
 1. A definition of faith declares that a doctrine was 
 revealed by God. 
 
 Are the faithful, then, dispensed from believing 
 Divine revelation till the Council is concluded, and 
 the Bishops have subscribed it? 
 
 I hope, for the sake of the Catholic religion in the 
 face of the English people, that we shall hear no more 
 of an assertion so uncatholic and so dangerous. 
 
 2. But perhaps it may mean that the Council is 
 not yet confirmed, because not yet concluded. 
 
 The Council may not yet be confirmed because 
 not yet concluded ; but the Definition is both con- 
 cluded and confirmed. 
 
 The Council is as completely confirmed, in its acts 
 hitherto taken, as it ever will or can be. The future 
 confirmation will not add anything to that which is 
 
40 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 confirmed already. It will coniirm future acts, not 
 those which are already perfect. 
 
 3. But perhaps some may have an idea that the 
 question is not yet closed, and that the CovmcU 
 may hereafter undo what it has done. We have 
 been told that ' Its decrees may have to be corrected,' 
 and that two years elapsed before the (Ecumenical 
 pretensions of the Latrocinium of Ephesus were 
 formally superseded. Some have called it ' Ludibrium 
 Vaticanum.' 
 
 Let those who so speak, or think, for many so 
 speak without thinking, look to their faith. The 
 past acts of the Council are infallible. No future 
 acts will retouch them. This is the meaning of ' irre- 
 formable.' Infallibility does not return upon its own 
 steps. And they who suspend their assent to its 
 acts on the plea that the Council is not concluded, are 
 in danger of falling from the faith. They who reject 
 the Definitions of the Vatican Council are already in 
 heresy. 
 
41 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 
 
 Having so far spoken on the less pleasing and less 
 vital part of this subject, I gladly turn to the authori- 
 tative acts of the Council, 
 
 The subject matter of its deliberations was divided 
 into four parts, and for each part a Deputation of 
 twenty-four Fathers was elected by the Council. The 
 four divisions were, on Faith, Discipline, Religious 
 Orders, and on Rites, including the Missions of the 
 Church, 
 
 Hitherto, the subjects of Faith and Discipline alone 
 have come before the Council; and of these two 
 chiefly the first has been treated, as being the basis of 
 all, and in its nature the most important. 
 
 In what I have to add, I shall confine myself to 
 the two Dogmatic Constitutions, De Fide and De 
 Ecclesia ChristL* 
 
 The history of the Faith cannot be adequately 
 written without writing both the history of heresy and 
 the history of definitions; for heresies are partial 
 aberrations from the truth, and definitions are recti- 
 fications of those partial errors. But the Faith is co- 
 extensive with the whole Revelation of Truth ; and 
 
 * See Appendix, p. 182, etc. 
 
42 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 thougli every revealed truth is definite and precise, 
 nevertheless, all are not defined. The need of defini- 
 tion arises when any revealed truth has been obscured 
 or denied. The general history of the Church will 
 therefore give the general history of the Faith; but 
 the history of Councils will give chiefly, if not only, 
 the history of those parts of revelation which have 
 been assailed by heresy and protected by definition. 
 
 The Divine Tradition of the Church contains 
 truths of the supernatural order which without 
 revelation could not have been known to man, such 
 as the Incarnation of God and the mystery of the 
 Holy Trinity, and truths of the natural order which 
 are known also by reason, such as the existence of 
 God. The circumference of this Divine Tradition is 
 far wider than the range of definitions. The Church 
 guards, teaches, and transmits the whole divine tra- 
 dition of natural and supernatural truth, but defines 
 only those parts of the deposit which have been 
 obscured or denied. 
 
 The eighteen OEcumenical Counpils of the Church 
 have therefore defined such specific doctrines of the 
 Faith as were contested. The Council of the Vatican 
 has, for this reason, treated of two primary truths 
 greatly contested but never hitherto defined : namely, 
 the Supernatural order and the Church. It is this 
 which will fix the character of the Vatican Council, 
 and will mark in history the progress of error in the 
 Christian world at this day. 
 
 The series of heresy has followed the order of the 
 Baptismal Creed. It began by assailing the nature 
 and unity of God the Creator; then of the Redeemer; 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 43 
 
 then the doctrine of the Incarnation, of the Godhead 
 and the Manhood of the Son of God ; then of the Holy 
 Trinity, and of the personality and Godhead of the 
 Holy Ghost. To these succeeded controversies on sin, 
 grace, and the Holy Sacraments ; finally the heresies 
 of the so-called Reformation, which spread over what 
 remained unassailed in the Catholic Theology, espe- 
 cially the Divine authority and the institution of the 
 Church itself. The Councils before Trent have com- 
 pletely guarded all doctrines of faith hitherto contes- 
 ted, by precise definition, excepting only the two 
 primary and preliminary truths anterior to all doc- 
 trine, namely, the revelation of the supernatural order 
 and the Divine authority and institution of the Church. 
 To affirm and to define these seems to be, as I said, 
 the mission and character of the Vatican Council, and 
 indicates the state of the Christian world ; because in 
 the last three hundred years the rapid development of 
 the rationalistic principle of Protestantism has swept 
 away all intermediate systems and fragmentary Chris- 
 tianities. The question is reduced to a simple choice 
 of faith and unbelief, or, of the natural or the super- 
 natural order. 
 
 This then is the starting-point of the first dogmatic 
 Constitution, De Fide Catholica. 
 
 In the Prooemium, the Council declares that none 
 can fail to know how the heresies condemned at Trent 
 have been subdivided into a multitude of contending 
 sects, whereby Faith in Christ has been overthrown in 
 many; and the Sacred Scriptures, which at first were 
 avowedly held to be the source and rule of faith, are 
 now reputed as fables. The cause of this it declares 
 
44 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 to be, the rejection of the Divine authority of the 
 Church, and the license of private judgment. 
 
 ' Then sprang up,' it goes on to say, ' and was widely 
 spread throughout the world, the doctrine of ration- 
 alism or naturalism, which opposing itself altogether 
 to Christianity as a supernatural institution, studiously 
 labours to exclude Christ, our only Lord and Saviour, 
 from the minds of men and from the life and morality 
 of nations, and to set up the dominion of what they 
 call pure reason and nature. After forsaking and re- 
 jecting the Christian religion, and denying the true 
 God and His Christ, the minds of many have lapsed 
 at length into the depth of pantheism, materialism, and 
 atheism, so that, denying the rational nature of man, 
 and all law of justice and of right, they are striving 
 together to destroy the very foundations of human 
 society. 
 
 ' While this impiety spreads on every side, it miser- 
 ably comes to pass, that many even of the sons of the 
 Catholic Church have wandered from the way of 
 piety, and while truth in them has wasted away, the 
 Catholic instinct has become feeble. For, led astray 
 by many and strange doctrines, they have recklessly 
 confused together nature and grace, human science, 
 and divine faith, so as to deprave the genuine sense 
 of dogmas which the Holy Church our Mother holds 
 and teaches ; and have brought into danger the integ- 
 rity and purity of the Faith.' 
 
 Such is the estimate of the condition of the Chris- 
 tian world in the judgment of the Vatican Council ; 
 and from this point of sight we may appreciate its 
 decrees. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 45 
 
 Its first chapter is of God the Creator of all things.* 
 In this is decreed the personality, spirituality, and 
 liberty of God, the creation of corporeal and of spiri- 
 tual beings, and the existence of body and soul in 
 man. These truths may be thought so primary and 
 undeniable as to need no definition. To some it may 
 be hardly credible that, at this day, there should exist 
 men who deny the existence of God, or His person- 
 ality, or His nature distinct from the world, or the 
 existence of spiritual beings, or the creation of the 
 world, or the liberty of the Divine will in creation. 
 But such errors have existed and do exist, not only in 
 obscure and incoherent minds, but in intellects of 
 power and cultivation, and in philosophies of elaborate 
 subtilty, by which the faith of many has been under- 
 mined. 
 
 The second Chapter is on Revelation. It affirms 
 the existence of two orders of truth: the order of 
 nature, in which the existence of God as the beginning 
 and end of creatures may be certainly known by the 
 things which He has made ; and the order which is 
 above created nature, that is, God and His action by 
 truth and grace upon mankind. The communication 
 of supernatural truth to man is revelation ; and that 
 revelation is contained in the Word of God written 
 and unwritten, or in the divine tradition committed 
 to the Church. These truths, elementary and cer- 
 tain as they seem, have been and are denied by errors 
 of a contradictory kind. By some it is denied that 
 God can be known by the light of reason ; by others 
 
 * The text of the Constitutions will be found in the Appendix, 
 No. IV. 
 
46 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 it is affirmed not only that God may be known by 
 the light of reason, but that no revelation is neces- 
 sary for man ; once more, others deny that man can 
 be elevated to a supernatural knowledge and perfec- 
 tion ; again, others affirm that he can attain to all 
 truth and goodness of and from himself. These 
 errors also are widespread ; and in the multifarious 
 literature which Catholics incautiously admit into 
 their homes and minds, have made havoc of the faith 
 of many. 
 
 The third Chapter is on Faith. It may be truly 
 said, that in this chapter every word is directed 
 against some intellectual aberration of this century. 
 
 It affirms the dependence of the created intel- 
 ligence upon the uncreated, and that this dependence 
 is by the free obedience of faith ; or, in other words, 
 that inasmuch as God reveals to man truths of the 
 supernatural order, man is bound to believe that 
 revelation by reason of the authority or veracity of 
 God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The 
 infallibility of God is the motive of faith. And this 
 faith, though it be not formed in us by perceiving 
 the intrinsic credibility of what we believe, but by 
 the veracity of God, nevertheless is a rational or 
 intellectual act, the highest and most normal in its 
 nature. For no act of the reason can be more in 
 harmony with its nature than to believe the Word of 
 God. To assure mankind that it is God who speaks, 
 God has given to man signs and evidences of His 
 revelation, which exclude reasonable doubt. The act 
 of faith therefore is not a blind act, but an exercise of 
 the highest reason. It is also an act not of necessity 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 47 
 
 but of perfect freedom, and therefore in itself an 
 act of normal obedience to God, and meritorious in 
 its nature. And this act of faith, in which both the 
 intellect and the will have their full and normal 
 exercise, is nevertheless an act not of the natural 
 order, but of the supernatural, and springs from the 
 preventing grace of the Holy Spirit, Who illuminates 
 the intelligence and moves the will. Faith is there- 
 fore a gift of God, and a moi-al duty which may be 
 required of us by the commandment of God. 
 
 But inasmuch as the grace of faith is given to man 
 that he may believe the revelation of God, it is co- 
 extensive Avith that whole revelation. Whatsoever 
 God has revealed, man, when he knows it, is bound 
 to believe. But God has made provision that man 
 should know His revelation, because He has com- 
 mitted it to His Church as the guardian and teacher 
 of truth. Whatsoever, therefore, the Church pro- 
 poses to our belief as the Word of God, written or 
 unwritten, whether by its ordmary and universal 
 teaching, or by its solemn judgment and definition, 
 we are bound to believe by divine and Catholic faith. 
 
 To this end, God has instituted in the world His 
 visible Church, one, universal, indefectible, immut- 
 able, ever multiplying ; the living witness of the 
 Incarnation, and the sufficient evidence of its own 
 mission to the world. The maximum of extrinsic 
 evidence for the revelation of Christianity is the 
 witness of the Church, considered even as an histori- 
 cal proof ; and that extrinsic evidence is not only 
 sufficient to convince a rational nature that Chris- 
 tianity is a Divine revelation, but to convict of 
 
48 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 unreasonable unbelief any intelligence which shall 
 reject its testimony. But the visible Church is not 
 merely a human witness. It was instituted and is 
 guided perpetually by God Himself, and is there- 
 fore a divine witness, ordained by God as the infallible 
 motive of credibility, and the channel of His reve- 
 lation to mankind. 
 
 I need hardly point out what errors are excluded 
 by these definitions. The whole world outside the 
 Catholic Church is full of doctrines diametrically, 
 contrary to these truths. It is affirmed that the 
 reason of man is so independent of God, that He 
 cannot justly lay upon it the obligation of faith; 
 again, that faith and science are so identified that 
 they have the same motives, and that there is neither 
 need nor place in our convictions for the authority of 
 God ; again, that extrinsic evidence is of no weight, 
 because men ought to believe only on their own in- 
 ternal experience or private inspiration ; again, that 
 all miracles are myths, and all supernatural evid- 
 ences useless, because intrinsically incredible; once 
 more, that we can only believe that of which we have 
 scientific proof, and that it is lawful for us to call 
 into doubt the articles of our faith when and as 
 often as we will, and to submit them to a scientific 
 analysis, in the meanwhile suspending our faith until 
 we shall have completed the scientific demonstration. 
 
 The fourth and last Chapter is on the relation of 
 faith to reason.. In this three things are declared: 
 first, that there are two orders of knowledge ; secondly, 
 that they differ as to their object; thirdly, that they 
 differ as to their methods of procedure. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 49 
 
 The order of nature contains the subject-matter 
 of natural religion and of natural science. The 
 order of faith contains truths which without re- 
 velation we might have known, though not cer- 
 tainly nor easily; and also truths which, without 
 revelation, we could not have known. Such then are 
 the two objects of reason and of faith. The two 
 methods of procedure likewise differ, inasmuch as 
 in the order of nature the instrument of knowledge is 
 discovery ; in the supernatural order, it is faith, and 
 the intellectual processes which spring from faith. 
 
 From these principles it is clear that science and 
 faith can never be in real contradiction. All seem- 
 ing opposition can only be either from error as to the 
 doctrine of the Church, or error in the assumptions 
 of science. Every assertion, therefore, contrary to 
 the truth of an illuminated faith, is false. ' For the 
 Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of 
 teaching, received also the command to guard the 
 deposit of faith, is divinely invested with the right 
 and duty of proscribing science falsely so-called, lest 
 any man be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit.' 
 ' For the doctrine of Faith which God has revealed, 
 was not proposed to the minds of men to be brought 
 to perfection like an invention of philosophy, but was 
 delivered to the Spouse of Christ as a divine deposit 
 to be faithfully guarded, and to be infallibly de- 
 clared.' 
 
 The importance of this first Constitution on Catho- 
 lic Faith cannot be over-estimated, and, from its great 
 breadth, may not as yet be fully perceived. 
 
 It is the broadest and boldest affirmation of the 
 
50 THE VATICAN ^COUNCIL. 
 
 supernatural and spiritual order ever yet made in 
 the face of the world ; which is now, more than ever, 
 sunk in sense and heavy with materialism. It de- 
 clares that a whole order of being and power, of 
 truth and agency, exists, and is in full play upon 
 the world of sense. More than this, that this super- 
 natural and spiritual order is present in the world, 
 and is incorporated in a visible and palpable form, 
 over which the world has no authority. That God 
 and His operations are sensible ; visible to the eye, 
 and audible to the ear. That they appeal to the 
 reason of man ; and that men are irrational, and 
 therefore act both imprudently and immorally, if they 
 do not listen to, and believe in the Word of God. It 
 affirms also, as a doctrine of revelation, that the 
 visible Church is the great motive of credibility to 
 faith, and that it is ' the irrefragable testimony of its 
 own divine legation.' It moreover asserts that the 
 Church has a divine commission to guard the deposit of 
 revelation, and ' a divine right to proscribe errors of 
 philosophy and vain deceit,' that is, all intellectual 
 aberrations at variance with the deposit of revelation. 
 Finally, it affirms that the Church has a divine office 
 to declare infallibly the deposit of truth. 
 
 I am not aware that in any previous (Ecumenical 
 Council the doctrine of the Church, and of its divine 
 and infallible authority, has been so explicitly defined. 
 And yet the Council of the Vatican was not at that 
 time engaged upon the Schema De Ecdesia^ which 
 still remains to be treated hereafter. It was not how- 
 ever without a providential guidance that the first 
 Constitution on Catholic Faith was so shaped, espe- 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 51 
 
 cially in its closmg chapter. Neither is it without a 
 great significance that at its conclusion was appended 
 a Monitum, in which the Roman Pontiff by his 
 supreme authority, enjoins all the faithful, Pastors 
 and people, to drive away all errors contrary to the 
 purity of the faith ; and moreover warns Christians 
 that it is not enough to reject positive heresies, but 
 that all errors which more or less approach to heresy 
 must be avoided ; and all erroneous opinions which 
 are proscribed and prohibited by the Constitutions 
 and decrees of the Holy See. 
 
 When these words were written, it was not foreseen 
 that they were a preparation, unconsciously made, for 
 the definition of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 
 If the first Constitution had been designedly framed 
 as an introduction, it could hardly have been more 
 opportunely worded. It begins with God and His 
 revelation ; it closes with the witness and office of 
 the Visible Church, and with the supreme authority 
 of its Head. The next truth demanded by the in- 
 trinsic relations of doctrine was the divine endow- 
 ment of infallibility. And when treated, this doctrine 
 was, contrary to all expectation, and to all likelihood, 
 presented first to the Council, and by the Council 
 to the world, in the person and oflBce of the Head of 
 the Church. 
 
 In all theological treatises, excepting indeed one 
 or two of great authority, it had been usual to treat 
 of the Body of the Church before treating of its 
 Head. The reason of this would appear to be, that 
 in the exposition of doctrine the logical order was the 
 more obvious ; and to the faithful, in the first forma- 
 
52 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 tion of the Church, the body of the Church was tnown 
 before its Head. We might have expected that the 
 Council would have followed the same method. It is, 
 therefore, all the more remarkable that the Council 
 inverted that order, and defined the prerogative of the 
 Head before it treated of the Constitution and en- 
 dowments of the Body. And this, which was brought 
 about by the pressure of special events, is not without 
 significance. The Schools of the Church have fol- 
 lowed the logical order : but the Church in Council, 
 when for the first time it began to treat of its own 
 constitution and authority, changed the method, and, 
 like the Divine Architect of the Church, began in the 
 historical order, with the foundation and Head of the 
 Church. Our Divine Lord first chose Cephas, and 
 invested him with the pi'imacy over the Apostles. 
 Upon this Rock all were built, and from him the 
 whole unity and authority of the Church took its 
 rise. To Peter alone first was given the plenitude 
 of jurisdiction and of infallible authority. Afterwards, 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost was shared with him by all 
 the Apostles. From him and through him, therefore, 
 all began. For which cause a clear and precise concep- 
 tion of his primacy and privilege is necessaiy to a 
 clear and precise conception of the Church. Unless 
 it be first distinctly apprehended, the doctrine of the 
 Church will be always proportionally obscure. The 
 doctrine of the Church does not determine the doctrine 
 of the Primacy, but the doctrine of the Primacy does 
 precisely determine the doctrine of the Church. In 
 beginning therefore with the Head, the Council has 
 followed our Lord's example, both in teaching and in 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 53 
 
 fact ; and in this will be found one of the causes of 
 the singular and luminous precision with which the 
 Council of the Vatican has, in one brief Constitution, 
 excluded the traditional errors on the Primacy and 
 Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 The reasons which prevailed to bring about this 
 change of method were not only those which demon- 
 strated generally the opportuneness of defining the 
 doctrine, but those also which showed specially the 
 necessity of bringing on the question whde as yet the 
 Council was in the fulness of its numbers. It was 
 obvious that the length of time consumed in the dis- 
 cu.ssion, reformation, and voting of the schemata was 
 such, that unless the Constitution De Romano Pon- 
 tijice were brought on immediately after Easter, it 
 could not be finished before the setting in of summer 
 should compel the Bishops to disperse. Once dis- 
 persed, it was obvious they could never again re- 
 assemble in so large a number. Many who, with 
 great earnestness, desired to share the blessing and 
 the grace of extinguishing the most dangerous error 
 which for two centuries has disturbed and divided 
 the faithful, would have been compelled to go back 
 to their distant sees and missions, never to return. 
 It was obviously of the first moment that such a 
 question should be discussed and decided, not, as we 
 should have been told, in holes and corners, or by a 
 handful of Bishops, or by a faction, or by a clique, 
 but by the largest possible assembly of the Catholic 
 Episcopate. All other questions, on which little 
 divergence of opinion existed, might well be left to a 
 smaller number of Bishops. But a doctrine which 
 
54 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 for centuries had divided both Pastors and people, 
 the defining of which was contested by a numerous 
 and organised opposition, needed to be treated and 
 affirmed by the most extensive dehberation of the 
 Bishops of the Cathohc Church. Add to this, the 
 many perils which hung over the continuance of the 
 Council ; of which I need but give one example. The 
 outbreak of a war might have rendered the definition 
 impossible. And in fact, the Infallibility of the 
 Koman Pontiff was defined on the eighteenth of July, 
 and war was officially declared on the following day. 
 
 With these and many other contingencies fully 
 before them, those who believed that the definition 
 was not only opportune but necessary for the unity 
 of the Church and of the Faith, urged its immediate 
 discussion. Events justified their foresight. The 
 debate was prolonged into the heats of July, when, 
 by mutual consent, the opposing sides withdrew 
 from a further prolonging of the contest, and closed 
 the discussion. If it had not been already protracted 
 beyond all limits of reasonable debate, for not less 
 than a hundred fathers in the general and special 
 discussions had spoken, chiefly if not alone, of in- 
 fallibility, it could not so have ended.* Both sides 
 were convinced that the matter was exhausted. 
 
 We will now examine, at least in outline, the first 
 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ ; and 
 I will then confine what I have to add to the defini- 
 tion of Infallibility ; thereby completing a part of the 
 
 * During the session of the council 420 speeches were delivered, 
 of which nearly one-fourth were on the Infallibility alone. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 55 
 
 subject whicli in the two previous Pastorals it would 
 have been premature to treat. 
 
 The Proo3mium of the Constitution declares that 
 the institution of the visible Church was ordained to 
 preserve the twofold unity of faith and of communion, 
 and that for this end one principle and foundation 
 was laid in Peter. 
 
 The first Chapter declares the Primacy of Peter 
 over the Apostles ; and that his primacy was conferred 
 on him immediately and directly by our Lord, and 
 consists not only in honour but also in jurisdiction. 
 
 The second Chapter affirms this primacy of honour 
 and jurisdiction to be perpetual in the Church ; and 
 that the Roman Pontiffs, as successors of Peter, in- 
 herit this primacy; whereby Peter always presides in 
 his see, teaching and governing the Universal Church. 
 
 The third Chapter defines the nature of his jurisdic- 
 tion, namely, ' totam plenitudinem hujus supremaj 
 potestatis,' the plenitude of power to feed, rule, and 
 govern the Universal Church. It is therefore a 
 jurisdiction episcopal, ordinary, and immediate over 
 the whole Church, over both pastors and people, that 
 is, over the whole Episcopate, collectively and singly, 
 and over every particular church and diocese. The 
 ordinary and immediate jurisdiction which every 
 several Bishop in the Church exercises in the flock 
 over which the Holy Ghost has placed him, is thereby 
 sustained and strengthened. 
 
 From this Divine primacy three consequences 
 follow : the one, that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme 
 judge over all the Church, from whom lies no appeal ; 
 the second, that no power under God may come 
 
56 The Vatican council. 
 
 between the chief pastor of the Church and any, from 
 the highest to the humblest, member of the flock of 
 Christ on earth ; the third, that this supreme power or 
 primacy is not made up of parts, as the sovereignty 
 of constitutional states, but exists in its plenitude in 
 the successor of Peter.* 
 
 The fourth and last Chapter defines the infallible 
 doctrinal authority of the Roman Pontiff as the 
 supreme teacher of all Christians. 
 
 The Chapter opens by affirming that to this supreme 
 j urisdiction is attached a proportionate grace, whereby 
 its exercise is directed and sustained. 
 
 This truth has been traditionally held and taught 
 by the Holy See, hj the praxis of the Church, and by 
 the OEcumenical Councils, especially those in which 
 the East and the West met in union together, as for 
 instance the fourth of Constantinople, the second of 
 Lyons, and the Council of Florence. 
 
 It is then declared, that in virtue of the promise of 
 our Lord, ' I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail 
 not,' f a perpetual grace of stability in faith was 
 divinely attached to Peter and to his successors in his 
 See. 
 
 The definition then affirms ' that the Roman Pon- 
 
 * In order to fix this doctrine more exactl}', and to exclude all 
 possible equivocation, after full and ample and repeated discussion, 
 the words ' aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non yero totam 
 plenitudinem hujus supremse potestatis,' were inserted in the Canon 
 appended to this Chapter. I notice this, because it has been most 
 untruly and most invidiously said, that these words were interpo- 
 lated after the discussion. They were fully and amply discussed, 
 and the proof of the fact exists in the short-hand report of the 
 speeches, laid up in the Archives of the Council. 
 
 t St. Luke xxii. 31, 32. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 57 
 
 tiff, when he speaks ex cathedra^ that is, when in dis- 
 charge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Chris- 
 tians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he 
 defines a doctrine regarding - faith or morals to be 
 held by the Universal Church, by the Divine assistance 
 promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that 
 infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed 
 that His Church should be endowed for defining doc- 
 trine, regarding faith and morals. And that there- 
 fore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irre- 
 formable of themselves, and not from the consent of 
 the Church.' 
 
 In this definition there are six points to be noted. 
 
 1. First, it defines the meaning of the well-known 
 phrase, loquens ex cathedra; that is, speaking from the 
 Seat, or place, or with the authority of the supreme 
 teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the 
 Universal Church. 
 
 2. Secondly, the subject-matter of his infallible 
 teaching, namely, the doctrine of faith and morals. 
 
 3. Thirdly, the efficient cause of infallibility, that 
 is, the divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter 
 to his successors. 
 
 4. Fourthly, the act to which this divine assistance 
 is attached, namely, the defining of doctrines of faith 
 and morals. 
 
 5. Fifthly, the extension of this infallible authority 
 to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church. 
 
 6. Lastly, the dogmatic value of the definitions ex 
 cathedra^ namely, that they are in themselves irre- 
 formable, because in themselves infallible, and not be- 
 cause the Church, or any part or member of the 
 Church, should assent to them. 
 
58 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 These six points contain the whole definition of 
 Infallibility. I will therefore take them in order, 
 and then answer certain objections. 
 
 I. First, the definition limits the infallibility of the 
 PontiiF to the acts which emanate from him ex ca- 
 thedra. This phrase, which has been long and com- 
 monly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, 
 been adopted into the terminology of the Church; 
 and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its 
 meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and 
 only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of 
 all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as 
 a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local 
 Bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all 
 these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In 
 one and one only capacity he is exempt from error ; 
 that is, when, as teacher of the whole Church, he teaches 
 the whole Church in things of faith and morals. 
 
 Our Lord declared, ' Super cathedram Moysi sede- 
 runt scriba? et Pharisasi : ' the scribes and Pharisees 
 sit in the chair of Moses. The seat or ' cathedra' of 
 Moses signifies the authority and the doctrine of 
 Moses ; the cathedra Petri is in like manner the 
 authority and doctrine of Peter. The former was 
 binding by Divine command and under pain of sin, 
 upon the people of God under the old law; the latter 
 is binding by Divine command and under pain of sin, 
 upon the people of God under the new. 
 
 I need not here draw out the traditional use of 
 the term cathedra Petri, which in St. Cyprian, St. 
 Optatus, and St. Augustine is employed as synony- 
 mous with the successor of Peter, and is used to 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 59 
 
 express the centre and test of Catholic unity. Ex 
 cathedra is therefore equivalent to ex cathedra 
 Petri, and distinguishes those acts of the successor 
 of Peter which are done as supreme teacher of the 
 whole Church. 
 
 The value of this phrase is great, inasmuch as it 
 excludes all cavil and equivocation as to the acts of 
 the Pontiff in any other capacity than that of Supreme 
 Doctor of all Christians, and in any other subject- 
 matter than the matters of faith and morals. 
 
 11. Secondly, the definition limits the range, or, to 
 speak exactly, the object of infallibility, to the doctrine 
 of faith and morals. It excludes therefore all other 
 matter whatsoever. 
 
 The great commission or charter of the Church is, 
 in the words of our Lord, ' Go ye therefore and teach 
 all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you ; and behold, I 
 am with you all days, even to- the consummation of 
 the world.'* 
 
 In these words are contained five points. 
 
 1. First, the perpetuity and universality of the 
 mission of the Church as the teacher of mankind. 
 
 2. Secondly, the deposit of the Truth and of the 
 commandments, that is, of the Divine Faith and law 
 entrusted to the Church. 
 
 3. Thirdly, the ofiice of the Church, as the sole 
 interpreter of the Faith and of the Law. 
 
 4. Fourthly, that it has the sole Divine jurisdiction 
 existing upon earth, in matters of salvation, over the 
 reason and the will of man. 
 
 * St. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
60 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 5. Fifthly, that in the discharge of this office our 
 Lord is with His Church always, and to the consum- 
 mation of the world. 
 
 The doctrine of faith, and the doctrine of morals 
 are here explicitly described. The Church is infal- 
 lible in this deposit of revelation. 
 
 And in this deposit are truths and morals both of 
 the natural and of the supernatural order; for the 
 religious truths and morals of the natural order are 
 taken up into the revelation of the order of grace, and 
 form a part of the object of infallibility. 
 
 1. The phrase, then, ' faith and morals ' signifies the 
 whole revelation of faith ; the whole way of salvation 
 through faith; or the whole supernatural order, with 
 all that is essential to the sanctification and salva- 
 tion of man through Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now, this formula is variously expressed by the 
 Church and by theologians ; but it always means one 
 and the same thing. 
 
 The Second Council of Lyons says, ' if any ques- 
 tions arise concerning faith,' they are to be decided 
 by the Roman Pontiff.* 
 
 The Council of Trent uses the formula ' in things 
 of faith and morals, pertaining to the edification of 
 Christian doctrine.' f 
 
 Bellarmine says, ' in things which pertain to faith,' 
 and again, ' The Roman Pontiff" cannot err in faith ; ' 
 and further he says, ' Not only in decrees of faith the 
 
 * ' Si quEe subortse fuerint qusestiones de fide, suo (i. e. Eom. Pont.) 
 debent judicio definiri.' — Labbe, Goncil. torn. xiv. p. 512. Venice, 
 1731. 
 
 t ' In rebus fidei et morutn ad sedificationem doctrinae Christianae 
 peitinentium.' — Labbe, Concil. torn. xx. p. 23. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 61 
 
 Supreme Pontiff cannot err, but neither (can he err) 
 in moral precepts which are enjoined on the whole 
 Church, and which are conversant Avith things neces- 
 sary to salvation, or with those which are in them- 
 selves good or evil,' * 
 
 Gregory of Valentia says, ' Without any restric- 
 tion it is to be said, that whatsoever the Pontiff 
 determines in controverted matters which have re- 
 spect to piety, he determines infallibly; when, as it 
 has been stated, he obliges the whole Church ; ' and 
 again, ' Whatsoever the Pontiff asserts in any con- 
 troverted matter of religion, it is to be believed that 
 he asserts infalHbly by his Pontifical authority, that 
 is, by Divine assistance.' f 
 
 Bannez proposes the thesis in these words : ' Can 
 (the Roman Pontiff) err in defining matters of 
 faith?'! 
 
 S. Antoninus says, ' It is necessary to admit one 
 head in the Church, to whom it belongs to clear up 
 
 * ' In his quse adfidem pertinent.'' ' Pontifex Eomanus non potest 
 errare in fide.^ ' Non solum in decretis fidei errare non potest 
 Summus Pontifex, sed neque in prseceptis morum, quje toti Ecolesias 
 prEescribtintur, et quEe in rebus necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis 
 qu£e per se bona vel mala sunt, versantur.' — Bellarmine, De Romano 
 Pontifice, lib. iv. capp. iii. v. pp. 795, 804. Venice, 1599. 
 
 f ' Absque ulla restrictione dicenduna est, quicquid Pontifex in 
 rebus controversis ad pietatem spectantibus determinat, infallibiliter 
 ilium determinare, quando, ut expositum est, universam Ecclesiam 
 obligat.' Greg, de Valentia, 0pp. tom. iii. disp. i. qti. i. ' De 
 Objecfo Fidei,' punct. vii. s. 40, p. 312. Ingolstadt, 1595. 
 
 ' Qusecumque Pontifex in aliqua re de religione controversa sic 
 asserit, carta fide credendum est ilium infallibiliter, utpote ex auc- 
 toritate Pontificia, i.e. ex Divina assistentia, asserere.' — Ibid. s. 39, 
 p. 303. 
 
 J 'An possit in rebus fidei definiendis errare?' — In Sum. S. Th. 
 Q. 2, q. 1. art. 10. 
 
62 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 doubts concerning whatsoever relates to faith, whether 
 speculative or practical.' * 
 
 Suarez says, ' It is a Catholic truth, that the Pon- 
 tiff defining ex cathedra is a rule of faith which can- 
 not err, whensoever he proposes authoritatively any- 
 thing to be believed of faith to the whole Church.' f 
 
 And in his treatise ' De Rehgione,' tract, ix. 1. 3, 
 c. 4, n. 5, speaking of the Bull of Gregory XIII., 
 ' Ascendente Domino,' by which it is declared that 
 simple vows constitute a true religious state, he says 
 that the truth of this definition is ' altogether infallible, 
 so that it cannot be denied without error. The 
 reason is, because the sentence of the Pontiff in 
 things which pertain to doctrine contains infallible 
 certainty by the institution and promise of Christ, 
 " I have prayed for thee." ' Afterwards he adds, ' The 
 providence of Christ our Lord over His Church 
 would be greatly diminished if He should permit His 
 Vicar, in deciding such questions ex cathedra^ to fall 
 into error.' J 
 
 * ' Oportet enim in Ecclesia ponere unum caput, ad quod pertinet 
 declarare ilia quse sunt dubia circa quiEcumque ad fidem pertinentia, 
 sive sint speculativa sive agibilia.' — Summa Theol. p. iii. tit. 22, 
 c. 3. 
 
 f ' Veritas Catholica est Pontificem definientem ex cathedra esse 
 regulam fidei, quK errare non potest quando aliquid authentice pro- 
 ponit toti Ecclesise, tanquam de fide credendum.' — Suarez, De 
 Fide, disp. v. sec. 8, torn. xiii. p. 94. Mentz, 1622. 
 
 X ' Omnino infallibilem, ita ut sine errore in fide negari non possit. 
 Eatio est, quia sententia Pontificis in his quce ad doctriTiam pertinent, 
 infallibilem continet certitudinem ex Christi institution e et permis- 
 sione : " Ego rogavi pro te." . . . Valde autem diminuta fuisset 
 Christi Domini providentia circa suam Ecclesiam si in decldendis 
 talibus quasstionibus ex cathedra Vicarium sunm labi permitteret.' — 
 Id. De Eeligione Soc. Jesu, lib. iii. c. 4, n. 6, torn. xvii. p. 427. , 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 63 
 
 Melchior Canus says, ' The Roman Pontiff succeeds 
 by Divine right to Peter both in firmness of faith 
 and in deciding controversies of religion ;' and again, 
 ' The Roman Pontiff in ending controversies of faith 
 cannot err.' * 
 
 S. Alphonsus affirms, ' When the Pope speaks as 
 universal Doctor, ex cathedra, that is, by the supreme 
 authority to teach the Church, delivered to Peter, 
 in deciding controversies of faith and morals, he is 
 altogether infallible.' f 
 
 Hervseus says, ' The authority of declaring doubtful 
 points in such matters belongs to the Pope, that is, in 
 things pertaining to the natural or divine law;' and 
 afterwards he adds, ' That his declaration ought to 
 be held as true, so that it is not lawful to hold or 
 to opine the contrary. 'J 
 
 Gregory de Yalentia adds, ' In him, whom the 
 whole Church is bound to obey in those things which 
 pertain to the spiritual health of the soul, whether they 
 concern faith or morals, there is infallible authority 
 for the judging questions of faith.' Again: ' Christ 
 willed that after the death of Peter, some one should 
 
 * ' Eomanus Pontifex Petro et in fidei firmitate et in compo- 
 nendis religionis controversiis divino jure succedit. Eomanus Pon- 
 tifex in fidei controversiis finiendis errare non potest.' — Melcbior 
 Canus, De loc. Theol. lib. vi. c. 4 and 7. 
 
 t ' Quum Papa loquitur tanquam Doctor universalis ex cathedra, 
 nempe ex potestate suprema tradita Petro docendi Ecclesiam in 
 controversiis fidei et morum decernendis, est omnino infallibilis. — S. 
 Alphons. Lig. 0pp. torn. i. lib. i. tract. 2, p. 13.5. Mechlin, 1845. 
 
 \ ' Ad Papam pertinet auctoritas declarandi dubia in talibus, hoc 
 est, in pertinentibus ad jus naturale vel divinum,^ &c. — De Pot. 
 Papm, ii. col. 4. . . . ' Quod declaratio sua debeat haberi nt vera, 
 ita quod non liceat oppositum tenere vel opinari.' — De Potent. Papali, 
 apud S. Anton. Eoccab. Bibl. Pontif. torn. v. p. 66. 
 
6-1 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 be acknowledged by the Church in perpetual succession 
 in Peter's place : on whom Christ Himself should con- 
 fer supreme authority as He did on Peter ^ of ordaining 
 the matters which relate to faith, and to other things 
 pertaining to the salvation of the faithful.^ And fur- 
 ther he says, 'that He (Christ) may confer on him 
 the authority, which Peter had, that is, that by a 
 certain law he may so ordain as to co-operate with 
 him by a peculiar assistance, in rightly appointing 
 such things in doctrine and morals as pertain to the 
 good estate of the Church.^ 
 
 And still more explicitly in another place he says, 
 ' It is not to be denied, that what has been said of the 
 infallible certainty of the Pontifical definitions, holds 
 good, first, in those things which the Pontifi" has pro- 
 posed to the faithful, in deciding doctrinal controversies 
 and exterminating errors^ as revealed of God, and to be 
 believed by faith. But, forasmuch as the Church is 
 always bound to hear its Pastor, and the Divine Scrip- 
 ture declares absolutely the Church to be the pillar and 
 ground of the truth (1 Tim. iii.), and therefore it can- 
 not ever err as a whole, it cannot be doubtful, that 
 the authority of the Pontiff is infallible in all other 
 things which regard piety^ and the whole Church. Nor 
 do I think that this can be denied without error.' 
 Gregory then applies this to the canonisation of 
 Saints, and concludes : ' This certainty surely rests 
 upon the same promises of God, by which we have 
 seen that it can never be that the whole Church 
 should err in matters of religion.''* 
 
 * ' Cui Ecclesia tota obtemperare tenetur, in iia rebus, quse ad 
 sph'itualem ammce salutem pertinent, sive illas fidem sive mores con- 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 65 
 
 Here we have the single word faith put to stand 
 for the whole revealed order of salvation : for morals 
 are contained under faith ; and this, which is the ulti- 
 mate object of infallibility, is expressed in the following 
 and various formulas: 1. Concerning faith. 2. In 
 things of faith and morals. 3. Things which pertain 
 to faith. 4. Things necessary to salvation. 5. Pre- 
 cepts of morals binding the whole Church. 6. . Things 
 pertaining to piety. 7. Things of religion. 8. 
 Things of faith speculative and practical. 9. Things 
 pertaining to doctrine. 10. Controversies of religion. 
 
 11. Things pertaining to the natural and Divine laws. 
 
 12. Things pertaining to the spii-itual health of souls. 
 
 cernant, in eo auctaritas est infallibilis ad fidei qusestiones dijudi- 
 candas.' — Gregory de Valentia, disp. 1. q. 1, ' De Objecto Fidei,' p. 
 vii. q. 5. s. 27, p. 238. Ingoldstadt, 1595. 
 
 ' Voluit Christus ut Petro vita defuncto aliquis perpetua serie 
 successionis in locum Petri ab Eoclesia reciperetur, cui Christus ipse 
 auctoritatem supremam sicut Petro conferret, de fide et aliis rebus 
 ea constituendi quae ad salutem fidelium pertineant.' Ibid s. 35, 
 p. 275. . . ' Ut is [Christus] illi conferat auctoritatem quam Petrus 
 habuit, hoc est, ut certa lege statuat, peculiari quadam assistentia 
 cum eo concurrere ad ea in doctrina et moribus recte constituenda 
 quse ad honum Ecclesice statum pertineant.' — Ibid. s. 36, p. 279. 
 
 'Non estnegandum, quin quod dictum est de infallibili certitudine 
 definitionum Pontificis, imprimis locum habeat, in iis quse Pontifex 
 ad doctrinse controversias finiendas erroresque exterminandos fidelium 
 proposuit, tanquam a Deo revelata et credenda ex fide. Cseterum, 
 quoniam Pastorem suum semper audire tenetur Eoclesia, et Ecclesiam 
 divina Scriptura absolute prsedicat esse columnam et firmamentum 
 veritatis (1 Tim. iii.), ideoque nunquam errare tota potest; dubium 
 esse non debet, quin in aliis quoque rebus omnibus asserendis, 
 qucB ad pietatem spectent, et Ecclesiam totam concernent, in- 
 fallibilis sit Pontificis auctoritas. Neque sane arbitror, hoc absque 
 errore negari posse. . . Quse sane certitude iisdem illis Dei promis- 
 sionibus nititur ex quibus compertum habemus nunquam esse 
 futurum ut universa Ecclesia in rebus religionis fallatur.' — Ibid. s. 
 40, p. 306. 
 
 F 
 
66 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 13. And to the salvation of the faithful. 14. To the 
 good estate of the Church. 15. The deciding of con- 
 troversies and the extermination of errors. 16. 
 Things which regard piety and the whole Church. 
 17. Matters of religion. 
 
 These might be greatly multiplied. They will, 
 however, suffice to show how wide and general is the 
 simple formula ' in faith and morals,' which is the 
 traditionary expression of the object of the infallibility 
 of the Church. 
 
 It is clear that these phrases are all equivalent. 
 They are more or less explicit, but they contain the 
 same ultimate meaning, namely, that the Church 
 has an infallible guidance in treating of all matters 
 of faith, morals, piety, and the general good of the 
 Church. 
 
 The object of infallibility, then, is the whole re- 
 vealed Word of God, and all that is so in contact 
 with revealed truth, that without treating of it, the 
 Word of God could not be guarded, expounded, and 
 defended. As, for instance, in declaring the Canon 
 and authenticity and true interpretation of Holy 
 Scripture, and the like* 
 
 Further, it is clear that the Church has an infallible 
 guidance, not only in all matters that are revealed, 
 but also in all matters which are opposed to reve- 
 lation. For the Church could not discharge its office 
 as the Teacher of all nations, unless it were able with 
 infallible certainty to proscribe doctrines at variance 
 with the word of God. 
 
 From thiSj again, it follows that the direct object of 
 infallibility is the Revelation, or Word, of God ; the 
 indirect object is whatsoever is necessary for its expo- 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 67 
 
 sition or defence, and whatsoever is contrariant to the 
 Word of God, that is, to faith and morals. The Church 
 having a divine office to condemn errors in faith and 
 morals, has therefore an infallible assistance in dis- 
 cerning and in proscribing false philosophies and false 
 science.* Under this head comes the condemnation 
 of heretical texts, such as the Three Chapters, 
 proscribed in the Fifth Council, the 'Augustinus' 
 of Jansenius, and the like ; and also censures, both 
 greater and less, those, for instance, of heresy and 
 of error, because of their contrariety to faith; those 
 also of temerity, scandal, and the like, because of 
 their contrariety to morals at least. 
 
 2. It is therefore evident that the doctrinal autho- 
 rity, of the Church is not confined to matters of revela- 
 tion, but extends also to positive truths which are not 
 revealed, whensoever the doctrinal authority of the 
 Church cannot be duly exercised in the promulga- 
 tion, explanation, and defence of revelation without 
 judging and pronouncing on such matters and truths. 
 This will be clear from the following propositions : 
 
 ( 1 . ) First, the doctrinal authority of the Church is 
 infallible in all matters and truths- which are neces- 
 sary to the custody of the Depositum. 
 
 This extends to certain truths of natural science, 
 as, for example, the existence of substance ; and to 
 truths of the natural reason, such as that the soul is 
 
 * Porro Ecclesia, qu£e una cum apostolico munere docendi, man- 
 datum accepit fidei depositum custodiendi, jus etiam et oiEcium 
 divinitus habet falsi nominis scientiam proscribendi, ne quis deci- 
 piatur per philosophiam, et inanem fallaoiam (Coloss. ii. 8). — Con- 
 stitutio Prima de Fide Catholica, cap. iv. De Fide et Eatione. 
 Appendix, No. IV. 
 
 f2 
 
68 THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 
 
 inimaterial ; that it is ' the form of the body ; ' * 
 and the like. It extends also to certain truths of the 
 supernatural order, which are not revealed; as, the 
 authenticity of certain texts or versions of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 The Council of Trent by a dogmatic decree declared, 
 under anathema, that the Vulgate edition is authentic. 
 Now this is a definition or dogmatic judgment, to be 
 believed on the infallible authority of the Church. 
 But this truth or fact is not revealed. 
 
 (2.) Secondly, there are truths of mere human his- 
 tory, which therefore are not revealed, without which 
 the deposit of the Faith cannot be taught or guarded in 
 its integrity. For instance, that St. Peter was Bishop 
 of Eome ; that the Council of Trent and the Council 
 of the Vatican are Ecumenical, that is, legitimately 
 celebrated and confirmed; that Pius IX. is the 
 successor of Peter by legitimate election. These 
 truths are not revealed. They have no place in Scrip- 
 ture ; and except the first, they have no place in 
 tradition ; yet they are so necessary to the order of 
 faith, that the whole would be undermined if they 
 were not infallibly certain. But such infallible cer- 
 tainty is impossible by means of human history and 
 human evidence alone. It is created only by the in- 
 fallible authority of the Church. 
 
 (3.) Thirdly, there are truths of interpretation, not 
 revealed, without which the deposit of the faith can- 
 not be preserved. 
 
 The Council of Trent f declares that to the Church 
 it belongs to judge of the true sense and inter- 
 
 * Concil. Later. V. Bulla Apostolici Regiminis. f Sess. iv. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. ^ 
 
 pretation of Holy Scripture. Now the sense ' of l&e- 
 Holy Scripture is twofold ; namely, the literal and 
 grammatical, or, as it is called, the sensus quis ; and 
 the theological and doctrinal, or the sensus qualis. 
 The Church judges infallibly of both. It judges of 
 the question that such and such words or texts have 
 such and such literal and grammatical meaning. It 
 judges also of the conformity of such meaning with 
 the rule of faith, or of its contradiction to the same. 
 The former is a question of fact, the latter of dogma. 
 That the latter falls within the infallible judgment of 
 the Church has been denied by none but heretics. 
 The former has been denied, for a time, by some who 
 continued to be Catholics : for this is, in truth, the 
 question of dogmatic facts. But the Jansenists never 
 ventured to extend their denial to the text of Scrip- 
 ture, though the argument is one and the same. The 
 Church has the same assistance in judging of the 
 grammatical and of the theological sense of texts, 
 whether sacred or simply human : and has exercised 
 it in all ages. 
 
 For instance : Pope Hormisdas * says, ' The vener- 
 able wisdom of the Fathers providently defined by 
 faithful ordinance what doctrines are Catholic : fixing 
 also certain parts of the ancient books to be received 
 as of authority, the Holy Ghost so instructing them ; 
 lest the reader, indulging his own opinion . . . should 
 assert not that which tends to the edification of the 
 Church, but what his own pleasure had conceived.' 
 
 Pope Nicholas I. f writes, 'By their decree (i.e. that 
 
 * Hormisdse Ep. LXX. Labbe, Condi, torn. v. p. 664. 
 
 t Nic. Ep. ad Univ. Episc. Galliee, Labbe, Condi, torn, x. p. 282. 
 
70 
 
 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 of, the Roman Pontiffs) the ^vritmgs of other authors 
 ^re apjjrovecl or condemned, so that what the Apo- 
 stoHc See approves, is to be held at this day, and what 
 it has rejected, is to be esteemed of no effect,' &c. 
 
 Pope Gelasius, in a Council held at Rome, decreed 
 as follows : ' Also the writings of Csecilius Cyprianus, 
 Martyr, Bishop of Carthage, are in all things to be 
 received; also the writings of Blessed Gregory, Bishop 
 of Xazianzum. . . . also the writings and treatises of 
 all orthodox Fathers, who in nothing have deviated 
 from the fellowshija of the Holy Roman Church, nor 
 have been separated from its faith and preaching; 
 but have been partakers by the grace of God of its 
 communion unto the last day of their life, we decree 
 to be read.' * 
 
 Turrecremata says, ' It is to be believed that the 
 Roman Pontiff is directed by the Holy Ghost in things 
 of faith, and consequently in these cannot err ; other- 
 wise any one might as easily say that there was error 
 in the choice (or discernment) of the four Gospels, 
 and of the canonical epistles, and of the books of 
 other doctors, approving some, and disapproving 
 others ; which, however, we read, and as is evident, 
 was determined by the Roman Pontiffs Gregory and 
 Gelasius.' f Again, he says, ' The sixth kind of Catho- 
 lic truths are those which are asserted by doctors, 
 approved by the Universal Church for the defence of 
 the faith and the confutation of heretics. . . . This 
 is evident : for since the Church, which is directed by 
 
 * Labbe, Concil. torn. v. p. 387. 
 
 f Turrecremata, De potestate Papali, lib. ii. cap. 112, in Bibl. 
 M. Eocaberti, torn. xiii. p. 4.53. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 71 
 
 the Holy Ghost, approves certain doctors, receiving 
 their doctrine as true, it necessarily follows that the 
 doctrine of such (writers), delivered by way of asser- 
 tion, and never otherwise retracted, is true and ought 
 to be held by all the faithful with firm belief, in so 
 far as it is received by the 'Universal Church; other- 
 wise, the Universal Church would appear to have 
 erred in approving and accepting their doctrine as 
 true, which however was not true.'* 
 
 And Stapleton lays down, ' Bishops . . . when 
 they treat of the Scripture as doctors, have not this 
 certain and infallible authority of which we are speak- 
 ing : until their treatises, approved by sacred authority, 
 are commended by the Church as Catholic and cer- 
 tainly orthodox interpretation, which Gelasius first 
 did,'t &c. 
 
 I will give one more example, as it is eminently in 
 point. 
 
 The Church has approved in a special manner the 
 works of St. Augustine as containing the true doc- 
 trines of grace against the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian 
 heresies. 
 
 In this particular, his works have been declared to 
 be orthodox by St. Innocent I., St. Zosimus, St. 
 Boniface I., St. Celestine, St. Hormisdas, St. Felix IV., 
 and Boniface II. For that reason Clement XI. justly 
 condemned the book of Launoy called 'Veritable 
 tradition de I'Eglise sur la Predestination et la Gr^ce,' 
 &c., as ' at least impious and blasphemous, and in- 
 jurious to St. Augustine, the shining light and chief 
 
 * Ibid. lib. iv. p. ii. c. ii. 382. 
 
 t Controv. Fidei, lib. x. c. ii. p. 355, ed. Paris, 1620. 
 
72 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 doctor of the Catholic Church ; as also to the Church 
 itself and to the Apostolic See.' * 
 
 Now, in this approbation the Church approved the 
 doctrine of St. Augustine, not only in the sensus 
 qualis but also in the sensus quis ; that is, it approved 
 not only a possible theological sense which was or- 
 thodox, but the very and grammatical sense of the 
 text. It was therefore a true doctrinal judgment 
 as to a dogmatic fact. 
 
 For, as Cardinal Gerdil argues, the doctrine of St. 
 Augustine was proposed by the Church as a rule of 
 faith against the Pelagian and semi- Pelagian errors. 
 ' AVhen it is said that the doctrine of St. Augustine in 
 the matter of grace was adopted by the Church, it 
 must not be understood in the sense as if St. Augus- 
 tine had worked out a peculiar system for himself, 
 
 which the Church then adopted as its own 
 
 ' The great merit of St. Augustine is, that with mar- 
 vellous learning he expounded and defended the 
 antient belief of the faithful.' f The Church infal- 
 libly discerned the orthodoxy of his writings, and 
 approving them, commended them as a rule of faith. 
 
 If the Church have this infallible discernment of 
 the meaning, grammatical and theological, of orthodox 
 texts, it has eodem intuitu the same discernment of 
 heterodox texts. For the universal practice of the 
 Church in commending the writings of orthodox, and 
 of condemning .those of heterodox authors, is a part 
 of the doctrinal authority of the Church in the 
 
 * Brev. ' Cum. sicut,' 28 Jan. 1704. D'Argentre, Collec. Jud. torn, 
 vi. p. 444. 
 
 ■]• Saggio d' Istruz. teol. ' De gratia,' ed. Eom. p. 189. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 73 
 
 custody and defence of the faith. It falls therefore 
 within the limits of its infallibility. 
 
 The commendation of the works of St. Augustine, 
 and the condemnation of the Thalia of Arius at Nicaja, 
 of the Anathematisms of Nestorius at Ephesus, and of 
 the Three Chapters of Ibas, Theodore, and Theodoret, 
 in the Second Council of Constantinople, all alike in- 
 volved a judgment of dogmatic facts. 
 
 The subterfuge of the Jansenists as to the literal 
 meaning of ' Augustinus ' came too late. The practice 
 of the Church and the decrees of Councils had already 
 pronounced its condemnation. 
 
 (4.) What has here been said of the condemnation 
 of heretical texts, is equally applicable to the censures 
 of the Church. 
 
 The condemnation of propositions is only the con- 
 demnation of a text by fragments. 
 
 The same discernment which ascertains the ortho- 
 doxy of certain propositions, detects the heterodoxy 
 of those which are contradictory. And in both pro- 
 cesses that discernment is infallible. To define 
 doctrines of faith, and to condemn the contradictions 
 of heresy, is almost one and the same act. The 
 infallibility of the Church in condemning heretical 
 propositions is denied by no Catholic. 
 
 In like manner, the detection and condemnation of 
 propositions at variance with theological certainty is 
 a function of the same discernment by which theo- 
 logical certainty is known. But the Church has an 
 infallible discernment of truths which are theologically 
 certain; that is, of conclusions resulting from two 
 premisses of which one is revealed and the other 
 pvidpnt, bv the liffht of nature. 
 
74 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 In these two kinds of censures, at least, it is there- 
 fore of faith that the Church is infallible. 
 
 As to the other censures, such as temerity, scandal, 
 oflPence to pious ears, and the like, it is evident that 
 they all relate to 'the moral character of propositions. 
 It is not credible that a proposition condemned by 
 the Church as rash should not be rash, and as scan- 
 dalous should not be scandalous, or as oiFensive to pious 
 ears should not be such, and the like. If the Church 
 be infallible in faith and morals, it is not to be be- 
 lieved that it can err in jDassing these moral judgments 
 on the ethical character of propositions. In truth, 
 all Catholic theologians, without exception, so far 
 as I know, teach that the Church is infallible in all 
 such censures.* They diflfer only in this : that some' 
 declare this truth to be of faith, and therefore the 
 denial of it to be heresy ; others declare it to be of 
 faith as to the condemnation of heretical propositions, 
 but in all others to be only of theological certainty; 
 so that the denial of it to be not heresy, but error. 
 
 To deny the infallibility of the Church in the' 
 censures less than for heresy, is held to be heretical 
 by De Panormo, Malderus, Coninck, Diana, Oviedo, 
 Amici, Matteucci, Pozzobonelli, Viva, Nannetti. 
 Murray calls it objective heresy. Griffini, Herincx, 
 Ripalda, Ferraris, and Reinerding do not decide 
 whether it be heretical, erroneous, or proximate to 
 error. Cardenas and Turrianus hold it to be 
 erroneous ; Anfossi erroneous, or proximate to error. 
 De Lugo in one place maintains that it is erroneous ; 
 
 * Of course, I am not speaking of writers whose works are under 
 censure. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 75 
 
 ill another, that to deny the infallibility of the Church 
 in the condemnation of erroneous propositions, is 
 heresy.* All, therefore, affirm the Church in passing 
 such censures to be infallible. 
 
 The infallibility of the Church in all censures less 
 than heresy may be proved from the acts of the 
 Council of Constance. In the eleventh article of the 
 Interrogatory proposed to the followers of Huss are 
 included condemnations of all kinds. They were 
 asked whether they believed the articles of "Wickliffe 
 and Huss to be 'not Catholic, but some of them 
 notoriously heretical, some erroneous, others temera- 
 rious and seditious, others offensive to pious ears.' f 
 
 * De Panormo, Scrutinium Doetrinarum, cap. iii. art. xiii. num. 
 7 sqq. p. 196, Rome, 1709 ; Diana, 0pp. torn. ix. De infall. Eom. 
 Pont, resol. x. num. 8 sqq. p. 262, Venice, 1698 ; Amici, Cursus 
 Theologicus, tom. iv. De Fide, disp. vii. num. 55, p. 146, Douay, 
 1641 ; Matteucci, Opus Dogmatic. De Controv. Pidei, vii. cap. iii. 
 num. 33, p. 359, Venice, 1755 ; Viva, Theses Damnatce, quasst. 
 prodrom. num. xviii. p. 10, Padua, 1737 ; Murray, De Ecclesia, 
 tom. iii. fasc. i. p. 226, Dublin, 1865; Herincx, Summ. Theol. Schol. 
 -et Moral, dub. ix. num. 98, p. 186, Antwerp, 1663; Eipalda, tom. 
 iii. disp. i. sect. 7, num. 59, p. 16, Cologne, 1648 ; Ferraris, Bihlio- 
 thec. Canonic, tom. vi. sub. v. Prop, Damn. num. 37, p. 565, Rome, 
 1789; Reinerding, Theol. Fundamental, tract, i. num. 408, p. 237, 
 Munster, 1864 ; Cardenas, Crisis Theologica, dis. prooem. num. 140, 
 p. 35, Cologne, 1690; Turrianus, Select. Disput. Theol. pars i. 
 disp. XXX. dub. 3, p. 149, Lyons, 1634; Anios&i, Difesa delV ' Aucto- 
 rem Fidei,' lett. x. tom. ii. p. 141, Rome, 1816; De Lugo, De Virtute 
 Fidei, tom. iii. disp. xx. sect. 3, num. 109, p. 324, and num. 113- 
 117, p. 325, Venice, 1751. For the summary and for the references 
 to Pozzobonelli, Malderus, Coninck, Oviedo, Nannetti and GrifEni, 
 I am indebted to an unpublished work of Fr. Granniello of the 
 congregation of Barnabites in Rome. 
 
 ■f ' Utrum credat sententiam sacri Constantiensis concilii, 
 . . . scilicet quod supradioti 45 articuli Joannis Wicliff, et 
 Joannis Huss triginta, non sunt Catholici ; sed quidam ex eis sunt 
 
76 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Martin V., therefore, in tlie Bull 'Inter cunctos* 
 requires belief, that is, interior assent, to all such con- 
 demnations made by the Council of Constance, which 
 therein extended its infallible jurisdiction to aU the 
 minor censures, less than that of heresy. 
 
 In like manner, again, in the Bull ' Auctorem Fidei,' 
 the propositions condemned as heretical are very 
 few, but the propositions condemned as erroneous, 
 scandalous, offensive, schismatical, injurious, are very 
 numerous. 
 
 During the last three hundred years, the Pontiffs 
 have condemned a multitude of propositions of which 
 perhaps not twenty were censured with the note of 
 heresy. 
 
 Now in every censure the Church proposes to us 
 some truth relating to faith or morals ; and whether 
 the matter of such truths be revealed or not revealed, 
 it nevertheless so pertains to faith and morals that 
 the deposit could not be guarded if the Church in 
 such judgments were liable to error. 
 
 The Apostle declares that ' the Church is the pillar 
 and ground of the Truth.' * On what authority these 
 words can be restricted to revealed truths alone, I do 
 not know. I know of no commentator, ancient or 
 modern, who so restricts them. On the other hand 
 St. Peter Damian, Sixtus V., Ferr6, Cardinal de 
 Lugo, Gregory de Valentia, expressly extend these 
 words to all truths necessary to the custody of the 
 deposit. 
 
 notorie hsretici, quidam erronei, alii temerarii et seditiosi, alii 
 piarum auriuin ofFensivi.' — Labbe, Condi, torn. xvi. p. 194. 
 * 1 Tim. iii. 15. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 77 
 
 This doctrine is abundantly confirmed by the 
 following declarations of Pius IX. ' For the Church 
 by its Divine institution is bound with all diligence to 
 guard whole and inviolate the deposit of Divine faith, 
 and constantly to watch with supreme zeal over the 
 salvation of souls, driving away therefore, and elimi- 
 nating with all exactness, all things which are either 
 contrary to faith or can in any way bring into peril 
 the salvation of souls. Wherefore the Church, by 
 the power committed to it by its Divine Author, has 
 not only the right, but above all the duty, of not 
 tolerating but of proscribing and of condemning all 
 errors, if the integrity of the faith and the salvation 
 of souls should so require. On all philosophers 
 who desire to remain sons of the Church, and on 
 all philosophy, this duty lies, to assert nothing con- 
 trary to the teaching of the Church, and to retract 
 all such things when "the Church shall so admonish. 
 The opinion which teaches contrary to this we pro- 
 nounce and declare altogether erroneous, and in the 
 highest degree injurious to the faith of the Church, 
 and to its authority.'* 
 
 From all that has been said, it is evident that the 
 Church claims no jurisdiction over the processes of 
 philosophy or science, except as they bear upon re- 
 vealed truths; nor does it claim to intervene in 
 philosophy or science as a judge or censor of the 
 principles proper to such philosophy or science. The 
 only judgment it pronounces regards the conformity 
 or variance of such processes of the human intelli- 
 
 * Litterse Pii IX., ' Gravissimas inter,' ad Archiep. Monac. et 
 Frlsine. Dec. 1862. 
 
78 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 gence with the deposit of faith, and the principles of 
 revealed morality : that is, in order to the end of its 
 infallible otfice, namely, the guardianship of Divine 
 revelation. 
 
 I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject- 
 matters which fall within the limits of the infalli- 
 bility of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to 
 determine the limits of its own infallibility. Hitherto 
 it has not done so except by its acts, and from the 
 practice of the Church we may infer to what matter 
 its infallible discernment extends. It is enough for 
 the present to show two things : 
 
 1. First, that the infallibility of the Church ex- 
 tends, as' we have seen, directly to the whole matter 
 of revealed truth, and indirectly to all truths which 
 though not revealed are in such contact with revela- 
 tion that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be 
 guarded, expounded, and defended without an infal- 
 lible discernment of such unrevealed truths. 
 
 2. Secondly, that this extension of the infallibility 
 of the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all 
 theologians, at least theologically certain ; and, in the 
 judgment of the majority of theologians, certain by 
 the certainty of faith,. 
 
 Such is the traditional doctrine respecting the 
 infallibility of the Church in faith and morals. By 
 the definition of the Vatican Council, what is tra- 
 ditionally believed by all the faithful in respect to the 
 Church is expressly declared of the Roman Pontiff. 
 But the definition of the extent of that infal- 
 libility, and of the certainty on which it rests, in 
 matters not revealed, has not been treated as yet,' 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 79 
 
 but is left for the second part of the 'Schema De 
 Ecclesia.' 
 
 III. Thirdly, the definition declares the efBciont 
 cause of infallibility to be a Divine assistance pro- 
 mised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors. 
 
 The explicit promise is that of our Divine Lord 
 to Peter, ' I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
 fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy 
 brethren.' * 
 
 The implicit promise is in the words ' On this rock 
 I wUl build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall 
 not prevail against it.' f 
 
 The traditional interpretation of these promises is 
 precise. 
 
 The words, ' Ego rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides 
 tua, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos,' 
 are interpreted, by both Fathers and Councils, of the 
 perpetual stability of Peter's faith in his see and his 
 successors ; and of this assertion I give the following 
 proofs. 
 
 St. Ambrose, a.d. 397, in his treatise on Faith, 
 says, Christ ' said to Peter, I have prayed for thee, 
 that thy faith fail not. Was He not therefore able 
 to confirm the faith of him to whom by His own 
 authority He gave the kingdom? whom He pohited 
 out as the foundation of the Church, when He called 
 him the rock ? ' J 
 
 * St.. Luke, xxii. 32. 
 
 t St. Matth. xvi. 18. 
 
 J Habes in evangelio quia Petro dixit, Rogavi pro te ut non 
 deficiat fides tua. — Ergo cui propria auctoritate regnum dabat, hujus 
 fidem firmare non poterat; quem cum petram dixit firmamentura 
 Ecclesise indicavit ? — St. Ambrose De Fide, lib. iv. cap. v. tom. iii. 
 p. 672, ed. Ben. Venice, 1751. 
 
80 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 St. John Chrysostom, a.d. 407, in his commentary 
 on the Acts of the Apostles, writes, ' He (i.e. Peter) 
 takes the lead in the matter, as he was himself en- 
 trusted with the care of all. For Christ said to him, 
 Thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren.'* 
 
 St. Augustine, a.d. 430, in his commentary on the 
 words of Psalm cxviii. 43, ' And take not Thou the 
 word of truth utterly out of my mouth,' says, ' There- 
 fore the whole body of Christ speaks ; that is, the 
 universality of the Holy Church, And the Lord 
 Himself said to Peter, I have prayed for thee, that 
 thy faith fail not, that is, that the word of truth be 
 not utterly taken out of thy mouth.' f 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, a.d. 444, in his commen- 
 tary on St. Luke, says, ' The Lord, when He hinted at 
 the denial of His disciple and said, I have prayed for 
 thee, that thy faith fail not, immediately utters a 
 "word of consolation, thou being converted, confirm 
 thy brethren; that is, be the confirmer and teacher 
 of those who come to Me by faith.' J 
 
 * Ilpairoe Tov TrpaynaroQ aiidevrel, &t£ alroQ waVToe ey^eipiadeiQ, 
 TrpoQ yap tiivtov enrev 6 Xpiirroe' Kai <tv ttote 'fKiiTTptiLas ariipilov 
 TOVQ aSe\<j>ovQ mw. — St. Joann. Chrys. 0pp. torn. ix. p, 26, ed. 
 Ben. Paris, 1731. 
 
 t Totum itaque corpus Christi loquitur, id est EcclesisB sanctse 
 universitas. — Et ipse Dominus ad Petrum, Eogavi, inquit, pro te, ne 
 deficiat fides tua ; hoc est ne auferatur ex ore tuo verbum veritatis 
 usque valde.— St. Augustin. Enarratio in Psalmos, torn. iv. p. 1310, 
 ed. Ben. Paris, 1681. 
 
 I O /it'i-rot KvpwQ Tfjv TOV fiadrjrov Ixpvrjinv alu^aftevoQ tV ole^ri, 
 idiiidriv ircpl aoi 'Iva fiij UXLirri i; tvIgtiq aov, tlaffpei trapaxpfipa 
 Tuv TtJQ TrapaKXijt7e<0Q Koyov, Kai (pr](n, Kal av ttote iwiiTTpi^aQ arrtpiiov 
 Toig aieXcpovc aov ■ rovrtaTi ytvov arripiyfia Kai ^ilaaicaXoQ tSiV lia 
 wiareuig wpoaiovTwv kfioLSt. Cyrill. Alex. Comment, in Luc. xxii. 
 torn. V. p. 916, ed. Migne, Paris, 1848. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 81 
 
 St. Leo the Great, a.d. 480, in a discourse on the 
 anniversary of his election to the Pontificate, says, ' If 
 anything in our time and by us is well administered 
 and rightly ordained, it is to be ascribed to his opera- 
 tion and to his government, to whom it was said, 
 " Thou being converted, confirm thy brethren," and 
 to whom after His resurrection, in answer to his 
 threefold declaration of everlasting love, the Lord with 
 mystical meaning thrice said, " Feed my sheep." '* 
 
 St. Gelasius, a.d. 496, writes to Honorius, Bishop 
 of Dalmatia, ' Though we are hardly able to draw 
 breath in the manifold difficulties of the times ; yet 
 in the government of the Apostolic See we un- 
 ceasingly have in hand the care of the whole fold of 
 the Lord, which was committed to blessed Peter by 
 the voice of our Saviour Himself, " And thou being 
 converted, confirm thy brethren," and again, " Peter, 
 lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." 'f 
 
 Pelagius IL, a.d. 590, in like manner writes to the 
 Bishops of Istria, ' For you know how the Lord in 
 the gospel declares : Simon, Simon, behold Satan has 
 desired you that he might sift you as wheat, but I 
 
 * Tantam potentiam dedit ei quern totius Ecclesiae principem 
 fecit, ut si quid etiam nostris temporibus recte per nos agitur 
 recteque disponitur illius operibus illius sit gubemaculis deputandum, 
 cui dictum est, Et tu conversus confirma fratres tuos ; et cui post 
 resurrectionem suani Dominus ad triuam Eeterui amorisprofessionem 
 mystica insinuatione tei' dixit, Pasce oves meas. — St. Leo, serm. iv. 
 cap. iv. torn. i. p. 19, ed. Ballerini, Venice, 1753. 
 
 I Licet inter varias temporum difficultates vis respirare valeamus, 
 pro sedis tamen apostolicse moderamine totius ovilis dominici curam 
 sine cessatione tractantes, quK beato Petro salvatoris ipsius nostri 
 voce delegata est, Et tu conversus confirma fratres tuos ; et item, 
 Petre, amas me ? 'pasce oves meas. — St. Gelasius, epist. v. ; in Labbe, 
 Concil. tom. v. p. 298, Venice, 1728. 
 
 G 
 
82 THE VATICAN 'COUJirCIL. 
 
 have prayed the Father for. thee, that thy faith fail 
 not, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren. 
 See, beloved, the truth cannot be falsified, nor can 
 the faith of Peter ever be shaken or changed.'* 
 
 St. Gregory the Great, a.d. 604, in his celebrated 
 letter to Maurice, Emperor of the East, says, ' For it 
 is clear to all who know the Gospel, that the care of 
 the whole Church was committed to the Apostle 
 St. Petei', prince of all the Apostles. For to him it 
 is said, " Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." To 
 him it is said, " Behold, Satan has desired to sift you 
 as wheat : but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy 
 faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm 
 thy brethren." To him it is said, " Thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock I will build My church," 'f &c. 
 
 Stephen, Bishop of Dori, a.d. 649, at a Lateran 
 Council under Martin I. says, in a libellus supplex or 
 memorial read and recorded in the acts, ' Peter the 
 Prince of the Apostles was first commanded to feed 
 the sheep of the Catholic Church, when the Lord 
 said, " Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep." And 
 
 * Nostis enim in evangelic domimim proclamantem, Simon, 
 Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum, ego 
 autem rogavi pro te Patrem, ut non deficiat fides tua, et tu conversus 
 confirma fratres tuos. Considerate, carissimi, quia Veritas mentiri 
 non potuit, nee fides Petri in seternum quassari poterit vel mntaii. 
 — Pelagius. 11. epist. v. in Labbe, Concil. tom. vi. p. 626. 
 
 \ Cunctis enim Evangelium scientibus liquet, quod voce dominica 
 sancto et omnium apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius 
 Ecclesise cura commissa est. Ipsi quippe dicitur, Petre, amas me? 
 pasce oves meas. Ipsi dicitur, Ecce Satanas expetiit cribrare vos 
 sicut triticum ; et ego pro te rogavi, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua; 
 et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos. Ipsi dicitur, Tu es 
 Petrus et super banc petram, etc. — St Gregor. Epist. lib. v. ep. xx. 
 tom. ii. 748, ed. Ben. Paris, 1705. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 63 
 
 again, he chiefly and especially, having a faith firm 
 above all, and unchangeable in our Lord God, was 
 found worthy to convert and to confirm his fellows 
 and his spiritual brethren who were shaken.'* 
 
 Pope St. Vitalian, a.d. 669, says, in a letter to 
 Paul, Archbishop of Crete, ' What things we com- 
 mand thee and thy Synod according to God and for 
 the Lord, study at once to fulfil, lest we be compelled 
 to bear ourselves not in mercy but according to the 
 power of the sacred canons, for it is written : The 
 Lord said, " Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy 
 faith fail not, and thou being once converted, con- 
 firrh thy brethren." And again : " Whatsoever thou, 
 Peter, shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed 
 in heaven." ' f 
 
 The quotations given in the Pastoral Letter of last 
 year, united with these, afford the following result. 
 The application of the promise Ego rogavi pro te, &c. 
 to the infallible faith of Peter and his successors, is 
 made by St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. 
 Gelasius, Pelagius IL, St. Gregory the Great, 
 
 * Princeps apostolomm Petrus pascere primus jiissus est oves 
 Catholicse Ecclesise, cum Dominus dicit, Petre, amas me ? Pasce 
 oves meas; et iterum ipse prseoipue ac specialiter firmam prK omni- 
 bus habens in Dominum Deum nostrum et immutabilem fidem, 
 convertere aliquando et confirmare exagitatos consortea suos et 
 spiritales meruit fratres. — Labbe, Concil. torn. vii. p. 107. 
 
 f Quae prsecipimua tibi secundum Deum et propter Dominum 
 tuseque synodo, stude iilico peragere, ne cogamur non misericorditer 
 sed secundum Tirtutem sacratissimorum canonum oonversari. 
 Scriptum namque est, Dominus inquit, Petre, rogavi pro te ut 
 non deficeret fides tua ; et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres 
 tuos. Et rursum, Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. — St. Vitalian, epist. i. 
 in Labbe, Concil. torn. vii. p. 460. 
 
 g2 
 
84 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Stephen Bishop of Dori in a Lateran Council, St. 
 Yitalian, the Bishops of the IV. (Ecumenical Council 
 A.D. 451, St. Agatho in the VI. a.d. 680, St. Bernard 
 A.D. 1153, St. Thomas Aquinas a.d. 1274, St. Bona- 
 venture a.d. 1274: that is, this interpretation is given 
 by three out of the four doctors of the Church, by six 
 Pontiffs down to the seventh century. It was 
 recognised in two CEcumenical Councils. It is ex- 
 plicitly declared by the Angelic Doctor, who may be 
 taken as the exponent of the Dominican school, and 
 by the Seraphic Doctor, who is likewise the witness of 
 the Franciscan ; and bj' a multitude of Saints. This 
 catena, if continued to later times, might, as all know, 
 be indefinitely prolonged. 
 
 The interpretation by the Fathers of the words, 
 ' On this rock,' &c. is fourfold, but all four interpre- 
 tations are no more than four aspects of one and the 
 same truth, and all are necessary to complete its full 
 meaning. They all implicitly or explicitly contain 
 the perpetual stabiUty of Peter's faith. It would 
 be out of place to enter upon this here. It is enough 
 to refer to Ballerini De vi et ratione Primatus, where 
 the subject is exhausted. 
 
 In these two promises a divine assistance is pledged 
 to Peter and to his successors, and that divine assist- 
 ance is promised to secure the stability and indefecti- 
 bility of the Faith in the supreme Doctor and Head 
 of the Church, for the general good, of the Church 
 itself. 
 
 It is therefore a charisma, a grace of the super- 
 natural order, attached to the Primacy of Peter which 
 is perpetual in his successors. 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 85 
 
 I need hardly point out that between the charisma, 
 or gratia gratis data of infallibility and the idea of 
 impeccability there is no connection. I should not 
 so much as notice it, if some had not strangely 
 obscured the subject by introducing this confusion. 
 I should have thought that the gift of prophecy in 
 Balaam and Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers 
 of the priesthood, which are the same in good and 
 bad alike, would have been . enough to make such 
 confusion impossible. 
 
 The preface to the Definition carefully lays down 
 that infallibihty is not inspiration. The Divine assist- 
 ance by which the Pontiffs are guarded from error, 
 when as Pontiffs they teach in matters of faith and 
 morals, contains no new revelation. Inspiration con- 
 tained not only assistance in writing but sometimes 
 the suggestion of truths not otherwise known. The 
 Pontiflfsare witnesses, teachei's, andjudges of the reve- 
 lation already given to the Church; and in guarding, 
 expounding, and defending that revelation, their wit- 
 ness, teaching, and judgment, is by Divine assistance 
 preserved from error. This assistance, like the reve- 
 lation which it guards, is of the supernatural order. 
 They, therefore, who argue against the infallibility of 
 the Pontiff because he is an individual person, and 
 still profess to believe the infallibility of Bishops 
 in General Councils, and also of the Bishops dispersed 
 throughout the world, because they are many wit- 
 nesses, betray the fact that they have not as yet 
 mastered the idea that infallibility is not of the order 
 of nature, but is of the order of grace. In the order 
 of nature, indeed, truth may be found rather with the 
 
86 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 many than witli the individual, though in this the 
 history of mankind would give a host of contrary 
 examples. But in the supernatural order, no such 
 argument can have place. It depends simply upon 
 the ordination of God ; and certainly neither in the 
 Old Testament nor in the New have we examples 
 of infallibility depending upon number. But in both 
 we have the example of infallibility attaching to per- 
 sons as individuals ; as for instance the Prophets 
 of the old and the Apostles of the new law. It is 
 no answer to say that the Apostles were united 
 in one body. They were each one possessed of 
 that which all possessed together. To this may be 
 also added the inspired writers, who were preserved 
 from error individually and personally, and not as a 
 collective body. The whole evidence .of Scripture, 
 therefore, is in favour, of the communication of Divine 
 gifts to individuals. The objection is not scriptural 
 nor Catholic, nor of the supernatural order, but 
 natural, and, in the last analysis, rationalistic. 
 
 IV. Fourthly, the Definition precisely determines 
 the acts of the Pontiff to which this Divine assistance 
 is attached ; namely, ' in doctrina de fide vel morihus 
 definienda,^ to the defining of doctrine of faith and 
 morals. 
 
 The definition, therefore, carefully excludes all 
 ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a private 
 person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private 
 theologian, and again all his acts which are not in 
 matters of faith and morals ; and further, all acts in 
 which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which 
 he does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 87 
 
 in defining doctrines to be held by the whole 
 Church. 
 
 The definition therefore includes, and includes 
 only, the solemn acts of the Pontifi' as the supreme 
 Doctor of all Christians, defining doctrines of faith 
 and morals, to be held by the whole Church. 
 
 Now the word doctrine here signifies a revealed 
 truth, traditionally handed down by the teaching 
 authority, or magisterium infallibile, of the Church; 
 including any truth which, though not revealed, is 
 yet so united with a revealed truth as to be insepa- 
 rable from its full explanation, and defence. 
 
 And the word definition here signifies the precise 
 judgment or sentence in which any such traditional 
 truth of faith or morals may be authoritatively for- 
 mulated; as, for instance, the consubstahtiality of the 
 Son, the procession of the Holy Ghost by one only 
 Spiration from the Father and the Son, the Immacu- 
 late Conception, and the like. 
 
 The word ' definition ' has two senses, the one 
 forensic and narrow, the other wide and common; 
 and this in the present instance is more correct. The 
 forensic or narrow sense confines its meaning to the 
 logical act of defining by genus and differentia. But 
 this sense is proper to dialectics and disputations, 
 not to the acts of Councils and Pontiffs. The wide 
 and common sense is that of an authoritative ter- 
 mination of questions which have been in doubt and 
 debate, and therefore of the judgment or sentence 
 thence resulting. When the second Council of Lyons 
 says, ' Si qua3 subortae fuerint fidei quasstiones suo 
 judicio debere definiri,' it means that the questions 
 
88 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 of faith ought to be ended by this judgment of the 
 Pontiff. JDeJinire is finem imponere, or jinaliter judi- 
 care. It is therefore equivalent to determinare, or 
 Jinaliter determinare, which words are those of St. 
 Thomas when speaking of the supreme authority of 
 the Roman Pontiff. It is in this sense that the 
 Vatican Council uses the word dejinienda. It signi- 
 fies the final decision by which any matter of faith 
 and morals is put into a doctrinal form. 
 
 Now it is to be observed that the definition does 
 not speak of either controversies, or questions of faith 
 and morals. It speaks of the doctrinal authority of 
 the Pontiff in general; and therefore both of what 
 may be called pacific definitions like that of the Im- 
 maculate Conception, and of controversial definitions 
 like those of St. Innocent against the Pelagians, or St. 
 Leo against the Monophysites. Moreover, under the 
 term definitions, as we have seen, are included all 
 dogmatic judgments. In the Bull Auctorem Fidei 
 these terms are used as synonymous. The tenth 
 proposition of the Synod of Pistoia is condemned' as 
 ' Detrahens firmitati definitionum, judiciorumve dog- 
 maticorum Ecclesiae.' In the Italian version made 
 by order of the Pope these words are translated, 
 'detraente alia fermezza delle definizioni o giudizj 
 dommatici della Chiesa.' Now, dogmatic judgments 
 included all judgments in matters of dogma; as for 
 instance, the inspiration and authenticity of sacred 
 books, the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of human and 
 uninspired books. 
 
 But intimately connected with dogma in these 
 judgments, as we have already seen, is the gram- 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 89 
 
 matical and literal sense of such texts. The theo- 
 logical sense of such texts cannot be judged of with- 
 out a discernment of their grammatical and literal 
 sense; and both are included in the same dogmatic 
 judgment, that is, both the dogmatic truth and the 
 dogmatic fact. 
 
 The example above given, in which the Pontiffs 
 approved and commended to the Church, as a rule of 
 faith against Pelagianism, the writings of St. Augus- 
 tine, was a true definition of doctrine in faith and 
 morals. The condemnation of the ' Augustinus ' of 
 Jansenius, and of the five propositions extracted 
 from it, was also a doctrinal definition, or a dogmatic 
 judgment. 
 
 In like manner all censures, whether for heresy or 
 with a note less than heresy, are doctrinal definitions 
 in faith and morals, and are included in the words in 
 doctrina de fide vel moribus definienda. 
 
 In a word, the whole magisterium or doctrinal 
 authority of the Pontifi" as the supreme Doctor of all 
 Christians, is included in this definition of his in- 
 fallibility. And also all legislative or judicial acts, 
 BO far as they are inseparably connected with his 
 doctrinal authority; as, for instance, all judgments, 
 sentences, and decisions, which contain the motives of 
 such acts as derived from faith and morals. Under 
 this will come laws of discipline, canonisation of 
 Saints, approbation of religious Orders, of devotions, 
 and the like; all of which intrinsically contain the 
 truths and principles of faith, morals, and piety. 
 
 The Definition, then, limits the infallibihty of the 
 Pontifi' to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and 
 
90 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in 
 the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or 
 doctrinal authority. 
 
 V. Fifthly, the definition declares that in these 
 acts the Pontiff ' ea mfallibilitate pollere, qua Divinus 
 Eedemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de 
 fide et inoribus instructaxn esse voluit ; ' that is, that 
 he is possessed of the infallibility with which our 
 Divine Saviour willed that His Church should be 
 endowed. 
 
 It is to be carefully noted that this definition 
 declares that the Roman Pontiff possesses by himself 
 the infallibility with which the Church in unison 
 with him is endowed. 
 
 The definition does not decide the question whether 
 the infallibility of the Church is derived from him or 
 through him. But it does decide that his infallibility 
 is not derived from the Church, nor through the 
 Church. The former question is left untouched. 
 Two truths are affirmed ; the one, that the supreme 
 and infallible doctrinal authority was given to Peter, 
 the other, that the promise of the Holy Spirit was 
 afterwards extended to the Apostles. The promises 
 'Ego rogavi pro te,' and 'Won prsevalebunt,' were 
 spoken to Peter alone. The promises 'He shall 
 lead you into all truth,' and ' Behold, I am with 
 you all days,' were spoken to Peter with all the 
 Apostles. The infallibility of Peter was, therefore, 
 not dependent on his union with them in exer- 
 cising it; but, their infallibility was evidently de- 
 pendent on their union with him. In like manner, 
 the whole Episcopate gathered in Council is not in- 
 
THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. 91 
 
 fallible without its head. But the head is always 
 infallible by himself. Thus far the definition is ex- 
 press, and the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ 
 is declared to be the privilegium Petri, a charisma 
 attached to the primacy, a Divine assistance given 
 as a prerogative of the Head. There is, therefore, a 
 special fitness in the word pollere in respect to the 
 Head of the Church. This Divine assistance is his 
 special prerogative depending on God alone; inde- 
 pendent of the Church, which in dependence on him 
 is endowed with the same infallibility. If the defi- 
 nition does not decide that the Church derives its 
 infallibility from the Head, ic does decide that the 
 Head does not derive his infallibility from the Church ; 
 for it affirms this Divine assistance to be derived 
 from the promise to Peter and in Peter to his suc- 
 cessors. 
 
 YI. Lastly^ the definition fixes the dogmatic value 
 of these Pontifical acts ex cathedra, by declaring that 
 they are ' ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesice, irre- 
 formahilia^ that is, irreformable in and of themselves, 
 and not because the Church or any part or any mem- 
 bers of the Church should assent to them.. These 
 words, with extreme precision, do two things. First, 
 they ascribe to the Pontifical acts ex cathedra, in 
 faith or morals an intrinsic infallibility; and secondly, 
 they exclude from them all influx of any other cause 
 of such intrinsic infallibility. It is ascribed alone to 
 the Divine assistance given to the Head of the Church 
 for that end and efffect. 
 
 I need not add, that by these words many forms of 
 error are excluded : as, first, the theory that the joint 
 
92 THE VATICAN COUNCII-. 
 
 action of the Episcopate congregated in Council is 
 necessary to the infallibility of the Pontiff; secondly, 
 that the consent of the Episcopate dispersed is re- 
 quired; thirdly, that if not the express at least the 
 tacit assent of the Episcopate is needed. All these 
 alike deny the infallibility of the Pontiff till his acts 
 ai'e confirmed by the Episcopate. I know, indeed, 
 it has been said by some, that in so speaking they 
 do not deny the infallibility of the Pontiff, but 
 affirm him to be infallible when he is united with the 
 Episcopate, from which they further affirm that he 
 can never be divided. But this, after aU, resolves the 
 efficient cause of his infallibility into union with the 
 Episcopate, and makes its exercise dependent upon 
 that union; which is to deny his infallibility as a 
 privilege of the primacy, independent of the Church 
 which he is to teach and to confirm. The words ' Ex 
 sese,-non autem ex consensu Ecdesice,' preclude all 
 ambiguity by which for two hundred years the 
 promise of our Lord to Peter and his successors has 
 in some minds been obscured. 
 
\)6 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE TEEMlNOLOaY OF THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 I WILL now add a few words respecting the terms 
 which have been used, not only in the course of the 
 last months, but in the traditional theology of the 
 Schools, on the doctrine of Infallibility. 
 
 Certain well-known writers have rendered memor- 
 able the formula of ' personal, separate, independent 
 and absolute infalHbility.' It has not only been used 
 in pastoral letters, and pamphlets, but introduced 
 into high diplomatic correspondence. 
 
 The frequency and confidence with which this for- 
 mula was repeated, as if taken from the writings of 
 the promoters of the Definition, made it not unnatural 
 to examine into the origin, history, and meaning of 
 the formula itself. I therefore set myself to search 
 it out; and I employed others to do the same. As 
 it had been ascribed to myself, our first examination 
 was turned to anything I might have written. After 
 repeated search, not only was the formula as a whole 
 nowhere to be discovered, but the words of which it 
 is composed' were, with the exception of the word ' in- 
 dependent,' equally nowhere to be found. I mention 
 this, that I may clear away the supposition that in 
 what I add I have any motive of defending myself 
 
94 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 or anything I may have written. I speak of it now 
 simply for the truth's sake, and for charity, which is 
 always promoted by a clear statement of truth, and 
 never by the confused noise of controversy ; and also 
 to justify some of the most eminent defenders of 
 Catholic doctrine, by showing that this terminology 
 is to be found in the writings of many of our greatest 
 theologians. 
 
 I may remind you, in passing, that in the Definition 
 not a trace of this formula nor of its component words 
 is to be found. 
 
 First, as to the word personal. Cardinal Toletus, 
 speaking of the doctrine of infallibility, says, ' The 
 first opinion is, that the privilege of the Pope, that of 
 not erring in faith, is personal; and cannot be com- 
 municated to another.' After quoting our Lord's 
 words, ' I have prayed for thee,' &c. he adds, ' I con- 
 cede that this privilege is personal.' * 
 
 Ballerini says, that the jurisdiction of St. Peter, by 
 reason of the primacy, was ' singular and personal ' to 
 himself. The same right he affirms to belong also 
 to the Roman Pontiffs, St. Peter's successors.' f 
 
 This doctrine he explains diffusely. 
 
 ' This primacy of chief jurisdiction, not of mere 
 order, in St. Peter and the Roman Pontiffs his suc- 
 cessors, is personal^ that is, attached to their person : 
 
 * ' Prima est quod privilegium Papse ut in fide errare non possit 
 est personale, nee ipse potest alteri communicare, Luc. xxii. ; "Ego 
 rogavi pro te, Petre, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres 
 tuos." Ad primum concede esse illud privilegium personale : ob id 
 communicari non potest.' — Toletus, In Sunvm. Enarr. torn. ii. pp. 62, 
 64. Eome 1869. 
 
 t ' Jurisdictio et prasrogativ» qua2 eidem sedi ab antiquis asse- 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF , INFALLIBILITY. 95 
 
 and therefore a supreme personal right, which is 
 communicated to no other, is contained in the 
 primacy. 
 
 ' Hence, when there is question of the rights and the 
 jurisdiction proper to the primacy, and when these are 
 ascribed to the Roman See, or Cathedra, or Church of 
 St. Peter; by the name of the Roman See or Cathedra, 
 or Church, to which this primacy of jurisdiction is 
 ascribed, the single person of the Roman Pontiff is to 
 be understood, to whom alone -the same primacy is 
 attached. 
 
 ' Hence again it follows, that whatsoever belongs to 
 the Roman See or Cathedra or Church, by reason of 
 the primacy, is so to be ascribed to the person of the 
 Roman Pontiffs that they need help or association of 
 none for the exercise of that right.' * 
 
 From this passage three conclusions flow : 
 
 1. First, that the Primacy is a personal privilege in 
 Peter and his successors. 
 
 runtur ratione primatus ejusdem Petri ac successorum singulares 
 et personales judicandse sunt.' — Ballerini, de Vi et Satione Primatus, 
 cap. iii. sect. 5, p. 14. Rome, 1849. 
 
 * ' Hie prEEcipuse jurisdictionis et non meri ordinis primatus 
 S. Petri et Eomanorum Pontificum ejus successorum personalis est, 
 seu ipsorum personse alligatus ; ac proinde jus quoddam prtecipuum 
 ipsorum personale, id est, nulli alii commune, in eo primatu con- 
 tineri debet. Hinc cum de jure, seu jurisdictione propria primatus 
 agitur, hsecque Romanse S. Petri sedi, cathedrEe, vel Bcclesias 
 tribuitur ; sedis cathedrse vel Ecclesise EomanEe nomine, cui ea 
 jurisdictio primatus propria asseratur, una Eomani Pontificis per- 
 sona inteUigenda est, cui uni idem primatus est alligatus. Hinc 
 quoque sequitur, quidquid juris ratione primatus Eomanfe sedi 
 cathedrEe, vel BcclesiEe competit, Eomanorum Pontificum personse 
 ita esse tribuendum ut nuUius adjutorio vel societate ad idem jus 
 exercendum indigeant.' — Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione Primatus, 
 cap. iii. propositio 3, p. 10. 
 
96 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 2. Secondly, that this personal privilege attaches 
 to Peter and to the Eoman Pontiffs alone. 
 
 3. Thirdly, that in exercising this same primacy the 
 Eoman Pontiff needs the help and society of no other. 
 
 Ballerini then adds : 
 
 ' That what was personal in Peter by reason of the 
 primacy, is to be declared personal in his successors 
 the Roman Pontiffs, on whom the same primacy of 
 Peter with the same jurisdiction has devolved, no one 
 can deny. 
 
 ' Therefore to Peter alone, and to the person alone 
 of his successors, the dignity and jurisdiction of the 
 Primacy is so attached, that it can be ascribed to no 
 other Bishop, even though of the Chief Sees; and 
 much less can it be ascribed to any number whatso- 
 ever of Bishops congregated together; nor in that 
 essential jurisdiction of the primacy ought the Roman 
 Pontiff to depend on any one whomsoever; nor can 
 he; especially as the jurisdiction received from Christ 
 was instituted by Christ un-circumscribed by any con- 
 dition, and personal in Peter alone and his successors : 
 like as He instituted the primacy of jurisdiction to 
 be personal, which without personal jurisdiction is 
 unintelligible.' * 
 
 * ' Quod autem personale in Petro fuit ratione primatus, idem in 
 successoribus ejus Eomanis Pontificibus, in quos idem primatus 
 Petri cum eadem jurisdictione transivit, personale esse dicendum, 
 inficiari potest nemo. Soli igitur Petro et soli successorum ejus 
 personse ita alligata est propria primatus dignitas et jurisdic- 
 tio ut nulli alii Episcopo prsBStantiorum licet sedium, et minus 
 multo pluribus aliis Episcopis quantumvis in unum coUectis, possit 
 adscribi : neque in ea jurisdictione primatus essential! Eomanus 
 Pontifex dependere ab alio quopiam debet aut potest, cum prse- 
 sertim ipsam a Christo acceptam idem Christus nulla conditione 
 
TEEMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 97 
 
 From these statements it follows : 
 
 1. Fij'st, that what depends on no other is altogether 
 independent. 
 
 2. Secondly, that what is circumscribed by no con- 
 dition is absolute. 
 
 3. Thirdly, that what is by God committed to one 
 alone, depends on God alone. 
 
 But perhaps it wUl be said that all this relates not 
 to infallibility, but to the power of jurisdiction only. 
 To this I answer : 
 
 1. That if the primacy be personal, all its prero- 
 gatives are personal. 
 
 2. That the doctrinal authority of the Pontiff is a 
 part of his jurisdiction, and is therefore personal. 
 
 3. That infallibility is, as the Definition expressly 
 declares, a supernatural grace, or charisma^ attached 
 to the primacy in order to its proper exercise. Infalli- 
 bility is a quality of the doctrinal jurisdiction of the 
 Pontiff in faith and morals. 
 
 And such also is the doctrine of Ballerini, who lays 
 down the following propositions : 
 
 'Unity with the Eoman faith is absolutely necessary, 
 and therefore the prerogative of absolute infallibility 
 is to be ascribed to it, and a coercive power to con- 
 strain to unity of faith, in like manner, absolute; as 
 also the infallibility and coercive power of the Catho- 
 Uc Church itself, which is bound to adhere to the faith 
 of Rome, is absolute.' * 
 
 circumscriptam, personalem solius Petri ac successorum esse in- 
 fitituerit, uti primatum jurisdictionis instituit personalem, qui sine 
 personal! jurisdictione inteUigi nequit. — Ballerini, de Vi et Ratione 
 Primatus, cap. iii. sect. 4, p. 13. 
 
 * Ballerini, de Vi et Bat. Primatus : Unitas cum Eomana fide abao- 
 
 H 
 
98 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 But Ballerini has declared that whatsoever is as- 
 cribed to the Eoman See, Cathedra, or Church is to 
 be ascribed to the person of the Koman Pontiff only. 
 Therefore this infallibility and coercive power are to 
 be ascribed to him, and are personal. 
 
 Here we have the infallibility personal, indepen- 
 dent, and absolute, fuUy and explicitly taught by two 
 chief theologians of great repute. 
 
 But hitherto we have not met the word separate, 
 though in truth the word sole, or alone, is equivalent. 
 
 I wiU therefore add certain quotations from the 
 great Dominican School. 
 
 Bzovius, the continuator of the Annals of Baronius, 
 says, ' To Peter alone, and after him to all the Roman 
 Pontiffs legitimately succeeding, the privilege of in- 
 fallibility, as it is called, was conceded by the Prince 
 of Pastors, Christ who is God.' * 
 
 Dominicus Marchese writes : ' This privilege was 
 conceded to the successors of Peter alone without the 
 assistance of the College of Cardinals;' and again, ' To 
 the Roman Pontiff alone, in the person of Peter, was 
 committed the care of the Universal Church, and 
 firmness, and certainty in defining matters of faith.' f 
 
 lute necessaria est, ac proinde infallibilatia prserogativa absoluta illi 
 est tribuenda, et vis coactiva ad fidei unitatem pariter absoluta: 
 sicuti absoluta est item infallibilitas et vis coactiva ipsiua Ecclesi» 
 Catbolicffi, qu£e Komanse fidei adheerere oportet. Appendix De infaU. 
 Pont. Prop. vii. 
 
 * ' Soli Petro et post eum omnibus Eomanis Pontificibus legitime 
 sedentibus, infallibUitatis quod vocant privilegium, a Principe 
 pastorum Cbristo Deo concessum, ut in rebus fidei, morum doo- 
 trina, et universalis Ecclesise administratione certissima nuUaque 
 faUaci» nota inumbrata decreta veritatis ipsius radio scribant 
 edicant et sanciant.' — Bzovius de Pontifice Romano, cap. xiv. p. 106; 
 apud Rocaberti, Biblioth. Pontif. torn. i. Rome, 1698. 
 
 f ' Soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli ejus successori 
 
TEEMINOLOGY OP DOCTKINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 99 
 
 Gravina teaches as follows : ' To the Pontiff, as one 
 (person) and alone, it was given to be the head ; ' 
 and again, ' The Roman Pontiff' for the time being is 
 one, therefore he alone has infallibility.'* 
 
 Vincentius Ferr^ says, ' The exposition of certain 
 Paris (doctors) is of no avail, who affirm that Christ 
 only promised that the faith should not fail of the 
 Church founded upon Peter; and not that it should 
 not fail in the successors of Peter taken apart from 
 (seorsum) the Church.' He adds that our Lord said, 
 ' I have prayed for thee, Peter ; sufficiently showing 
 that the infallibility was not promised to the Church 
 as apart from (seorsum) the head, but promised to- 
 the head, that from him it should be derived to the 
 Church.' t 
 
 Marchese, before quoted, repeats the same words, 
 
 Summo Pontifici secluso Cardinalium CoUegio hoc privilegium con- 
 cessit.' — Marchese, de Capite visibili Ecclesioe, disput. iii. dub. 2, 
 p. 719 ; apud Eocaberti, torn.' ix. 
 
 ' Soli Eomano Pontifici in persona Petri commissa est cura 
 totius Ecclesi» et firmitas et certitude in definiendo res fidei.' — Mar- 
 chese, disput. V. dub. 1, sect. 2, p. 785 ; apud Eocaberti, torn. ix. 
 
 * ' Uni et soli Pontifici datum est esse caput.' — Gravina, de su- 
 premo Judice controv. Fidei, qusest. i. apud Eocaberti, torn. viii. 
 p. 392. 
 
 ' Nullus in terra reperitur alter, qui cseteris sit in fide firmior et 
 constantior sciatur esse quam unus Pontifex Eomanus pro tempore ; 
 ergo et ipse solus habet infallibilitatem.' — Gravina, qusest. ii. apud 
 Eocaberti, torn. viii. p. 422. 
 
 t ' Nee valet expositio aliquorum Parisiensium afSrmantium hie 
 Christum tantum promisisse fidem non defecturam Ecclesise fundatse 
 super Petrum, non vero promisisse non defecturam in successoribus 
 Petri seorsum ab Bcclesia sumptis. Christus dicens, ego autem 
 rogavi pro te P.etre, satis designat hanc infallibilitatem non pro- 
 missam Ecclesiae ut seorsum a capite, sed promissam capiti, ut ex 
 illo derivetur ad Ecclesiam.' — Ferre, JDe Fide, quaest. xii. apud 
 Eocaberti, tom. xx. p. 388. 
 
 H 2 
 
100 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 ' The infallibility in faith which (our Lord) promised, 
 not to the Church apart from (seorsum) the head, 
 but to the head, that from him it should be derived 
 to the Church.' * Billuart also says ' (Chi'ist) makes 
 a clear distinction of Peter from the rest of the 
 Apostles, and from the whole Church, when He says, 
 And thou, &c.' f 
 
 Peter Soto writes: 'When this (Pasce oves meas, 
 &c.) was said to JPeter in the presence of the rest of 
 the Apostles, it was said to Peter as one, and as apart 
 from (seorsum) the rest.' J 
 
 And Marchese again, ' Therefore to Peter alone 
 set apart from the Apostles (secluso ab Apostolis), and 
 therefore to his successor alone, the Supreme Pontiff, 
 set apart from the College of Cardinals, He (our 
 Lord) conceded this privilege.' § 
 
 Lastly, F. Gatti, the learned professor of theology 
 of the Dominican Order at this day, writing of the 
 words, 'I have prayed for thee,' &c., says, 'inde- 
 fectibUity is promised to Peter apart from (seorsum) 
 
 * ' Satis designat infallibilitatem in fide quam promisit, noE 
 Ecclesise seorsum a Capite sed Capiti ut ex illo derivetur ad Eccle- 
 siam.' — ^Marchess, de capite Visib. Eccles. disput. iii. dub. 2; 
 apud Eocaberti, torn. ix. p. 719. 
 
 f - ' Facit enim apertam distinotionem Petri ab aliis apostolis et a 
 tota Ecclesia cum dicit, et tu aliquando conversua confirma firatres 
 tuos.' — Billuart, de Regulis Fidei, dissert, iv. art. 5, sect. 2, torn. iv. 
 p. 78. Venice, 1787. 
 
 I 'Dum vero hoc Petro coram ceteris apostolis dicitur, uni, 
 inquam, Petro et a casteris seorsum.' — Petrus Soto, Defensio Ca- 
 tholicce Confessionis, cap. 82, apud Eocaberti, torn, xviii. p. 73. 
 
 § ' Ergo soli Petro secluso ab Apostolis ac proinde soli ejus suc- 
 cessori summo Pontifici, secluso Cardinalium coUegio, hoc privi- 
 legium concessit.' — Marchese, de Capite visib. Eccles. disp. iii. 
 dub. 2 ; apud Eocaberti, torn. ix. p. 715. 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 101 
 
 the Church, or from the Apostles; but it is not 
 proroised to the Apostles, or to the Church, apart 
 from (seorsum) the head, or with the head,' and 
 afterwards he adds, ' Therefore Peter, even apart 
 from (seorsum) the Church, is infallible.'* 
 
 Muzzarelli, in his treatise on the primacy and in- 
 fallibility of the Pontiff, uses the same terms again and 
 again ; of which the following is an example. Speak- 
 ing as in the person of the Pontiff, he says, ' If I 
 separately from a Council propose any truth to be 
 beheved by the Universal Church, it is most certain 
 that I cannot err.'f 
 
 In like manner Mauro Cappellari, afterwards Gre- 
 gory XVI., affirms that the supreme judge of con- 
 ti'oversies is the Pontiff, ' distinct and separate from 
 all other Bishops : and that his decree in things of 
 faith ought by them to be held without doubt.' J 
 
 Lastly, Clement VI., in the fourteenth century, 
 proposed to the Armenians certain interrogations, of 
 which the fourth is as follows : 
 
 ' Hast thou believed, and dost thou still believe, 
 that the Roman Pontiff alone, can by an authentic 
 
 * ' Indefectibilitas promittitur Petro seorsum ab Ecclesia seu ab 
 Apostolis; non vero promittitur Apostolis seu Ecclesiaa sive seorsum a 
 capita, sive una cum capite. — Ergo Petrus etiam seorsum ab Ecclesia 
 spectatus est infallibilis.' — Gatti, Institutiones Apologetico-PolemiccB. 
 apud Bianchi de Constitutione MonarcMca EcclesicB, p. 124. 
 Eome, 1870. 
 
 t 'Ne viene ohe se anch' io separatamente dal concilio vorr6 
 proporre alia cbiesa universale la verita da credersi su questo arti- 
 colo, non potr6 certamente errare.' — Muzzarelli, Primato ed Infal- 
 lihilita del Papa, in II Buon Uso della Logica, torn. i. p. 183. 
 Florence, 1821. 
 
 % II Triohfo della Santa Sede, Cap. v. Sect. 10, p. 124. Venezia, 
 1832. 
 
102 THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 
 
 determination to •which we must inviolably adhere, 
 put an end to doubts which arise concerning the 
 Catholic faith; and that whatsoever he, by the author- 
 ity of the keys delivered to him by Chi-ist, determines 
 to be true, is true and Catholic; and what he deter- 
 mines to be false and heretical is to be so esteemed ?' * 
 
 In the above passages we have infallibility personal, 
 absolute, independent, without the Apostles, without 
 the CoUege of Cardinals, alone, apart from the 
 Church, separate from Councils and from Bishops. 
 
 I am not aware of any modern writer who has 
 used language so explicit and fearless. 
 
 We wiU now ascertain the scholastic meaning of 
 these terms; and we shall see that they are in precise 
 accordance with the definition of the Council. 
 
 You need not be reminded, Reverend and dear 
 Brethren, of the terminology of Canonists in treating 
 the subject of privileges. 
 
 A privilege is a right, or faculty bestowed upon 
 persons, places, or things. 
 
 Privileges therefore are of three kinds, personal, 
 real, and mixed.f 
 
 A personal privilege is that which attaches to the 
 person as such. 
 
 A real privilege attaches either to a place, or to a 
 thing, or to an office. 
 
 * 'Si credidisti et adhuc credia solum Komanmn Pontificem, 
 dubiis emergentibvis circa fidem catholicam posse per deteimina- 
 tionem authenticam cui sit inviolabiliter adLserendum, finem im- 
 ponere et esse verum et Catholicum qtiidquid ipse auctoritate cla- 
 vium sibi traditarum a Christo determinat esse verum ; et quod 
 determinat esse falsum et haereticum sit censendum,'— Baronius, 
 tom. XXV. ad aim. 1351, p. 529. Lucca, 1750. 
 
 t Keiffenstuel. Tit. de Privileg. lib. v. 34, 12. 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 103 
 
 A mixed privilege may be both personal and real; 
 it may also attach to a community or body of persons, 
 as to an University, or a College, or a Chapter. 
 
 The primacy, including jurisdiction and infallibility, 
 is a privilege attaching to the person of Peter and of 
 his successors. It is therefore a personal privilege 
 in the Pontiffs. 
 
 It is personal, as Toletus says, because it cannot 
 be communicated to others. It is not a real privi- 
 lege attached to the See, or Cathedra, or Church of 
 Rome, and therefore to the person ; but to the person 
 of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore, to the See. 
 
 It is not a mixed privilege, attaching to the Pontiff, 
 only in union with a community or body, such as 
 the Episcopate, congregated or dispersed ; but attach- 
 ing to his person, because inherent in the primacy, 
 which he alone personally bears. 
 
 The use of the word personal is therefore precise 
 and correct, according to the scholastic terminology ; 
 not, indeed, according to the sense of newspaper 
 theologians. Theology, like chancery law, has its 
 technical language; and the common sense of Eng- 
 lishmen would keep them from using it in any other 
 meaning. 
 
 In this sense it is that the Dominican theologian 
 De Fiume says, ' There are two things ... in 
 Peter: one personal, and another public; as Pastor 
 and Head of the Church. Some things therefore be- 
 long to the person of Peter alone, and do not pass 
 to his successors ; as the saying, Get thee behind me 
 Satan ... and the like. Some, again, are spoken 
 of him as a public person^ and by reason of his office 
 
104 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 as supreme Head and Pastor of the Universal Church, 
 as, Feed My sheep, &c.' * 
 
 Therefore, infallibility is the privilege of Peter not 
 as a- private person, but as a public person holding 
 the primacy over the Universal Church. 
 
 In the Pastoral addressed to you so long ago as 
 the year 1867, this was pointed out in the unmistak- 
 able words of Cardinal Sfondratus. ' The Pontiff,' 
 he says, ' does some things as a man, some things as 
 a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as 
 head and foundation of the Church ; and it is only to 
 these (last-named) actions that we attribute the gift 
 of infallibility. The others we leave to his human 
 condition. As then not every action of the Pope is 
 papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys the 
 papal privilege.' f 
 
 The value therefore of this traditional language of 
 the schools is evident. 
 
 When the infallibility of the Pontiff is said to be 
 personal, it is to exclude all doubt as to the source 
 from which infallibility is derived ; and to declare 
 
 * ' Duo namque sunt in Petro. TJnum personale et aliud pub- 
 licum, ut Pastor et caput Ecclesiee. Quaedam ergo tantummodo 
 personse Petri conveniunt, ad successores non transeunt; ut quod 
 dicatur : Vade post me, Satana, et similia. Quaedam vero dicuntur 
 de eo quatenus est persona publica, et ratione officii Supremi 
 Capitis et Pastoris Ecclesias universalis; ut Pasce eves meas, &c.' — 
 Ignatius de Piume, Schola veritatis orihodoxcB, apud Bianchi, de 
 Gonstitutione Monarchica Ecclesim, p. 88. Kome, 1870. 
 
 I ' Pontifex aliqua facit ut homo, aUqua ut Princeps, aliqua ut 
 Doctor, aliqua ut Papa, hoc est ut caput et fundamentum EcclesiEe : 
 et his solis actionibus privilegium infallibilitatis adscribimus : alias 
 humanse conditioni relinquimus : sicut ergo non omnis actio Papse 
 est papalis, ita non omnis actio Papse papali privilegio gaudet.' — 
 Sfondrati, Regale Sacerdotium, lib. iii. sec. 1. 
 
TERMINOLOGY • OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 105 
 
 that it is not a privilegium mixtum inherent in 
 the Episcopate, or communicated by it to the head 
 of the Church; but a special assistance of the Spirit 
 of Truth attaching to the primacy, and therefore 
 to the person who bears the primacy, Peter and 
 his successors ; conferred on them by Christ Himself 
 for the confirmation of the Church in faith. 
 
 2. Next, as to the term separate. The sense in 
 which theologians have used this term is obvious. 
 They universally and precisely apply it to express the 
 same idea as the word personal ; namely, that in the 
 possession and exercise of this privilege of infallibility 
 the successor of Peter depends on no one but God. 
 The meaning of decapitation, decollation, and cutting 
 off, of a headless body, and a bodiless head, I have 
 hardly been able to persuade myself, has ever, by 
 serious men, at least in serious moods, been imputed 
 to such words as separatim^ seorsum^ or seclusis 
 Episcopis. 
 
 My reason for this doubt is, that such a monstrous 
 sense includes at least six heresies ; and I could 
 hardly think that any Catholic would fail to know 
 this, or, knowing it, would impute it to Catholics, still 
 less to Bishops of the Church. 
 
 The words seorsum, &c., may have two meanings, 
 one obviously false, the other as obviously true. 
 
 The former sense would be disunion of the head 
 from the body of the Episcopate and the faithful, or 
 separation from Catholic communion ; the latter, an in- 
 dependent action in the exercise of his supreme office. 
 
 And first of the former : 
 
 1. It is defide, or matter of faith, that the head of 
 
106 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the Church, as such, can never be separated, either 
 from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecdesia discens ; that 
 is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful. 
 
 To suppose this, would be to deny the perpetual 
 indwelling office of the Holy Ghost in the Church, 
 by which the mystical body is knit together; the 
 head to the Body, the Body to the head, the 
 members to each other ; and to ' dissolve Jesus,' * that 
 is, to destroy the perfect symmetry and organisation 
 which the Apostle describes as the body of Christ ; 
 and St. Augustine speaks of as ' one man, head and 
 body, Christ and the Church a perfect man.'f On 
 this unity all the properties and endowments of the 
 Church depend ; indefectibility, unity, infallibility. 
 As the Church can never be separated from its in^ 
 visible Head, so never from its visible head. 
 
 2. Secondly, it is matter of faith that the Ecdesia 
 docens or the Episcopate, to which together with 
 Peter, and as it were, in one person with him, the 
 assistance of the Holy Ghost was promised, can 
 never be dissolved ; but it would be dissolved if it 
 were separated from its head. Such separation 
 would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. 
 The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is 
 impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed. 
 
 3. Thirdly, it is also matter of faith that not only 
 no separation of communion, but even no disunion of 
 doctrine and faith between the Head and the Body, 
 
 * St. Jolin iv. 3, ' Omnia spiritus qiii solvit Jesum,' &c. 
 
 f ' Unus homo caput et corpus, umis homo Christus et Ecclesia 
 vir perfectus.' — S. Augustin. In Psalm xviii. torn. iv. p. 85, 86, ed. 
 Ben. Paris, 1681. 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OP INFALLIBILITY. 107 
 
 that is, between the Ecdesia docens and discens, 
 can ever exist. Both are infallible ; the one ac- 
 tively, in teaching, the other passively, in believing; 
 and both are therefore inseparably, because neces- 
 sarily, united in one faith. Even though a num- 
 ber of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and 
 Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never 
 fall away. It would always remaia united, by the 
 indwelling of the Holy Ghost, to its head ; and the 
 reason of this inseparable union is precisely the infalli- 
 bility of its head. Because its head can never err, 
 it, as a body, can never err. How many soever, as in- 
 dividuals, should err and fall away from the truth, the 
 Episcopate would remain, and therefore never be dis- 
 united from its head in teaching or believing. Even 
 a minority of the Bishops united to the head, would 
 be the Episcopate of the Universal Church. They, 
 therefore, and they only, teach the possibility of such 
 a separation, who assert that the Pontiff may fall into 
 error. But they who deny his infallibility do ex- 
 pressly assert the possibility of such a separation. 
 And yet it is they who have imputed to the defenders 
 of the Pontifical infallibility, that separation which 
 on ' Ultramontane ' principles is impossible ; but, on 
 the principles of those who lay the charge, such a 
 separation is not only possible, but even of probable 
 occurrence. 
 
 So far, we have spoken of the idea of separation 
 from communion, or disunion in faith and doctrine. 
 But further, the separate or independent exercise of 
 the supreme Pontifical authority in no way imports 
 separation or disunion of any kind. 
 
108 THE VATICAN COUNCIL; 
 
 1. It is de fide that the plenitude of jurisdiction 
 was given to Peter and his successors ; and that its 
 exercise over the whole body, pastors and people, 
 imports no separation or disunion from the Body. 
 How then should the exercise of infallibility, which 
 is attached to that jurisdiction, import separation? 
 
 2. Again, it is de fide that this supreme juris- 
 diction and infallibility was given to maintain and 
 perpetuate the unity of the Church. How then can 
 its exercise produce separation, which it is divinely 
 ordained to prevent ? 
 
 It is therefore de fide that its exercise excludes 
 separation, and binds the whole Church, both Body 
 and Head, in closer bonds of communion, doc]trine 
 and faith. 
 
 3. Lastly, it is de fide that in the assistance pro- 
 mised to Peter and his successors, all the means 
 necessary for its due exercise are contained. An 
 infallible office fallibly exercised is a contradiction 
 in terms. The infallibility of the head consists in 
 this, that he is guided both as to the means and 
 as to the end. It is therefore contrary to faith to say, 
 that the independent exercise of this office, divinely 
 assisted, can import separation or disunion of any 
 kind. It is a part of the promise, that in the selection 
 of the means of its exercise, the successor of Peter 
 will not err. If he erred as to the means, either he 
 would err as to the end, or he would be preserved only 
 by a series of miracles. In escaping from the super- 
 natural, the objectors fall into the miraculous. The 
 Catholic doctrine of infalhbility invokes no such in- 
 terventions. It affirms that a Divine assistance, pro- 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 109 
 
 portionate to tlie burden of the primacy, is attached 
 to it as a condition of its ordinary exercise, in bonum 
 Ecclesice. The freedom as well as the prudence of 
 the Pontiffs, in selecting the means of exercising their 
 office of universal Doctor, is carefully expressed in 
 the fourth chapter of this Constitution. ' The Roman 
 Pontiffs, as the state of times and events induced 
 them, sometimes by convoking (Ecumenical CouncUs, 
 or by ascertaining the mind of the Church dispersed 
 throughout the world, sometimes by local Synods, 
 sometimes by employing other helps which Divine 
 providence supplied, have defined, as truths to be 
 held, such things as they by God's assistance knew to 
 be in harmony with the Scriptures and Apostolical 
 traditions.' * 
 
 It may be well here to add two passages which 
 complete this subject. 
 
 Melchior Canus says : ' Inasmuch as God promised 
 firmness of faith to the Church, He cannot be 
 wanting to it, so as not to bestow upon the Church 
 prayers and other helps whereby that firmness is pre- 
 served. Nor can it be doubted that what happens in 
 natural things, the same occurs in supernatural; 
 namely, that he who gives the end gives the means to 
 the end.' 
 
 ' If God should promise an abundant harvest next 
 year, what could be more foolish than to doubt 
 whether men would sow seeds in the earth ? So 
 will I never admit that either Pontiff or Council 
 have omitted any necessary diligence in deciding 
 questions of faith. It might happen to any private 
 
 * Constit. Dogmat. Prima, de Eccl. Christi, cap. iv. 
 
110 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 man, that he should not use diligent attention in 
 seeking truth, and yet to do so should entirely give 
 himself to the work, and, though his error be in- 
 culpable, nevertheless fall into error. But even 
 inculpable error is far from the Church of God, as 
 we have proved in a former book. Which fact is an 
 abundant argument that neither Pontiff nor Council 
 has omitted, in deliberation, any necessary thing.' 
 'Let us therefore grant that to the Judges consti- 
 tuted by God in the Church, none of those things 
 can be wanting which are necessary for a right and 
 true judgment.' * 
 
 Cerboni, a theologian of the Dominican order, says : 
 ' When once anything of faith has been defined by 
 the Supreme Pontiff, it is not permitted to doubt 
 whether he has used all diligence before such de- 
 finition.' 
 
 * ' Cum Ecclesi» fidei firmitatem fiierit" pollicitus, deesse non 
 potest quominus tribuat Bcclesiae preces, caeteraque prssidia, quibus 
 hsec firmitas conservatur. Nee vero dubitari potest, quod in rebus 
 naturalibus contingit, idem in supernaturalibus usu venire ; ut qui 
 dat finem, det consequentia ad finem. — Quod si Deus in sequentem 
 annum frugum abundantiam polliceretur, ecquid stultius esse posset 
 quam dubitare, anne homines semina terrae mandaturi sint? — Ita 
 nunquam ego admittam aut Pontificem aut concilium diligentiam 
 aliquam necessariam qusestionibus fidei decernendis omisisse. Id 
 quod privato cuicunque alteri homini accidere potest, ut nee dili- 
 gentem navet operam ad disquirendam Teritatem, et ut navaverit 
 integrumque sese in ea re prasstiterit, errat adhuc tamen, quamvis 
 error sine culpa sit. Error autem vel inculpatus ab Ecclesia Dei 
 longissime abest, quemadmodum libro superiore constituimus. Qme 
 res abunde magno argumento est ut nee Pontifex nee concilia ne- 
 cessarium quicquam in deliberando prsetermiserint. — Concedamus 
 ergo judicibus a Deo in Ecclesia constitutis nihil eorum deesse 
 posse, qu£e ad rectum verumque judicium sunt necessaria.' — Mel- 
 chior Canus, I)e Locis Theologicis, lib. v. cap. 5, pp. 120, 121. 
 Venice, 1776. 
 
TEEMINOLOGY OF DOCTKINE OF INFALLIBILITY. Ill 
 
 'It absolutely cannot be said, that the means 
 necessary for the Supreme Pontiff in the investigation 
 of truth have been neglected by him, even though he 
 should be supposed to have defined anything ex ca- 
 thedra^ without first seeking the judgment of others.' 
 
 ' The privilege of infallibility, when the Supreme 
 Pontiff defines anything ex cathedra, is to be ascribed 
 not to those whom he has previously consulted, but 
 to the Eoman Pontiff himself. 
 
 'Inasmuch as the truth and certainty of those 
 things which are defined " ex cathedra " depend on the 
 authority and infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff, it 
 is not necessarily requisite, that he should first consult 
 these (counsellors) rather than others, this rather than 
 that body, concerning the matter which he is about to 
 define ex cathedra.' * 
 
 Prom all that has been said, three things are beyond 
 question ; first, that the privilege of infaUibihty in the 
 head of the Church, neither by its possession nor by 
 
 * ' Semel ac a Summo Pontifice quidpiam ad fidem spectans 
 definitum habeatur, dubitare non licet, utrum omnem diligentiam 
 ante hujusmodi definitionem ille prsemiserit. 
 
 QuEe ad investigandam veritatem media in summo Pontifice re- 
 quiruntur, ab eo neglecta ftiisse, absolute dici non potest, etiamsi 
 aliorum non exquisita sententia quidpiam ex cathedra definiisse 
 prssupponatur. 
 
 Privilegium infallibilitatis, dum a Summo Pontifice aliquid ex 
 cathedra definitur, non iis qui antea consulti fuerint, sed ipsi Romano 
 Pontifici tribui debet. 
 
 Ex 60 quod Veritas et certitudo eorum quae ex cathedra 
 defiijiuntur, a Summi Pontificis auctoritate et infallibilltate pen- 
 deant, non necessario requiritur, ut Summus Pontifex de eo quod 
 est ex cathedra definiturus, hos vel illos potius quam alios hunc vel 
 ilium co3tum prse alio antea consulat.WCerboni, De Jure et Legum 
 Disciplina, lib. 23, cap. 6, apud Bianchi de constitutione mon. 
 Eccles. p. 158. Rome, 1870. 
 
112 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 its exercise, can in any way import separation or dis- 
 union between the head and the body. Such a sup- 
 position involves, as we have seen, heretical notions 
 at every turn. The, very reverse is true: that the 
 supreme privilege of infallibility in the head is the 
 divinely ordained means to sustain for ever the unity 
 of the Universal Church in communion, faith, and 
 doctrine. 
 
 And further, that the independent exercise of this 
 privilege by the head of the Episcopate, and as dis- 
 tinct from the Bishops, is the divinely ordained 
 means of the perpetual unity of the Episcopate in 
 communion and faith with its head and with its own 
 members. 
 
 And lastly, that though the consent of the Episco- 
 pate or the Church be not required, as a condition, to 
 the intrinsic value of the infallible definitions of the 
 Roman Pontiff, nevertheless, it cannot without heresy 
 be said or conceived that the consent of the Episco-. 
 pate and of the Church can ever be absent. For if 
 the Pontiff be divinely assisted, both the active and 
 the passive infallibility of the Church exclude such a 
 supposition as heretical. To deny such infallible as- 
 sistance now after the definition, is heresy. And even 
 before the definition, to deny it was proximate to 
 heresy, because it was a revealed truth, and a Divine 
 fact, on which the unity of the Church has depended 
 from the beginning. 
 
 From what has been said, the precise meaning of 
 the terms before us may be easily fixed. 
 
 1. The privilege of infallibility impersonal, inasmuch 
 as it attaches to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of 
 
TERMINOLOGY OF DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 113 
 
 Peter, as & public person, distinct from, but inseparably 
 united to, the Church; but it is not personal, in that 
 it is attached, not to the private person, but to the 
 primacy, which he alone possesses. 
 
 2. It is also independent, inasmuch as it does not 
 depend upon either the Ecdesia docens or the Ecclesia 
 discens; but it is not independent, in that it depends 
 in all things upon the Divine Head of the Church, 
 upon the institution of the primacy by Him, and 
 upon the assistance of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. It is absolute, inasmuch as it can be circum- 
 scribed by no human or ecclesiastical law; it is not 
 absolute, in that it is circumscribed by the office of 
 guarding, expounding, and defending the dejDosit of 
 revelation. 
 
 4. It is separate in no sense, nor can be, nor can so 
 be called, without manifold heresy, unless the word be 
 taken to mean distinct. In this sense, the Roman 
 Pontiff is distinct from the Episcopate, and is a dis- 
 tinct subject of infallibility; and in the exercise of his 
 supreme doctrinal authority, or magisterium, he does 
 not depend for the infallibility of his definitions upon 
 the consent or consultation of the Episcopate, but only 
 on the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost. 
 
114 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH. 
 
 It may here be well to answer an objection which 
 is commonly supposed to lie against the doctrine of 
 the Pontifical Infallibility ; namely, that the evidence 
 of history is opposed to it. 
 
 The answer is twofold. 
 
 1. First, that the evidence of history distinctly 
 proves the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 I shall be told that this is to beg the question. 
 
 To which I answer, they also who affirm the con- 
 trary beg the question. 
 
 Both sides appeal to history, and with equal con- 
 fidence; sometimes with equal clamour, and often 
 equally in vain. 
 
 By some people ' The Pope and the Council,' by 
 Janus, is regarded as the most unanswerable work of 
 scientific history hitherto published. 
 
 By others it is i"ega,rded as the shallowest and most 
 pretentious book of the day. 
 
 Between such contradictory judgments who is to 
 decide ? Is there any tribunal of appeal in matters 
 of history? or is there no ultimate judge? Is history 
 a road where no one can err ; or is it a wilderness in 
 which we must wander without guide or path? are 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE EULB OF FAITH. 115 
 
 we all left to private judgment alone? If any one 
 say, that there is no judge but right reason or common 
 sense, he is only reproducing in history what Luther 
 applied to the Bible. 
 
 This theory may be intellectually and morally pos- 
 sible to those who are not Catholics. In Catholics 
 such a theory is simple heresy. That there is an 
 ultimate judge in such matters of history as affect 
 the truths of revelation, is a dogma of faith. But 
 into this we will enter hereafter. 
 
 For the present, I will make only one other obser- 
 vation. 
 
 Let us suppose that the divinity of our Lord were 
 in controversy. Let us suppose that two hundred 
 and fifty-six passages from the Fathers were adduced 
 to prove that Jesus Christ is God. These two hun- 
 dred and fifty-six passages, we will say, may be dis- 
 tributed into three classes ; the first consisting of a 
 great number, in which the divinity of our Lord is 
 explicitly and unmistakably declared; the second, a 
 greater nuniber which so assume or imply it as to 
 be inexplicable upon any other hypothesis; the third, 
 also numerous, capable of the same interpretation, 
 and incapable of the contrary interpretation, though 
 in themselves inexplicit. 
 
 We will suppose, next, one passage to exist in some 
 one of the Fathers, the aspect of which is adverse. 
 Its language is apparently contradictory to the hypo- 
 thesis that Jesus Christ is God. Its terms are ex- 
 plicit ; and, if taken at the letter, cannot be reconciled 
 with the doctrine of His divinity. 
 
 I need only remind you of St. Justin Martyr's 
 
116 THE VATICAir-COUNClL. 
 
 argument that the Angel who appeared to Moses in 
 the bush could not be the Father, but the Son, 
 because the Father could not be manifested 'in a 
 narrow space on earth;'* or even of the words of 
 our Divine Lord Himself, ' The Father is greater 
 than I.'t 
 
 Now I would ask, what course would any man of 
 just and considerate intelligence pursue in such a 
 case? 
 
 Would he say, one broken link destroys a chain? 
 One such passage adverse to the divinity of Christ 
 outweighs two hundred and fifty-six passages to the 
 contrary? 
 
 Would this be scientific history ? Or would it be 
 scientific to assume that the one passage, however 
 apparently explicit and adverse, can bear only one 
 sense, and cannot in any other way be explained? If 
 so, scientific historians are bound to the literal prima 
 facie sense of the words of St. Justin Martyr, and of 
 our Lord above quoted. 
 
 Still, supposing the one passage to remain explicit 
 and adverse, and therefore an insoluble difficulty, I 
 would ask whether any but a Socinian, oTroSsVe* 
 oouXso'oji/, servilely bound, and pledged by the per- 
 verseness of controversy, would reject the whole 
 cumulus of explicit and constructive evidence con- 
 tained in two hundred and fifty-six passages, because 
 of one adverse passage of insoluble difficulty ? People 
 must be happily unconscious of the elements which 
 underlie the whole basis of their most confident beliefs 
 
 * Dialog, cum Tryph. sect. 60, p. 157. Ed. Ben. Paris, 1742. 
 t St. John xiv. 28. 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE RULE OP FAITH. 117 
 
 if they would so proceed. But into this I will not 
 enter now. Enough to say, that such a procedure 
 would be so far from scientific that it would be super- 
 ficial, uniiitellectual, and absurd. I would ask, then, is 
 it science, or is it passion, to reject the cumulus of evi- 
 dence which surrounds the infallibility of two hundred 
 and fifty-six pontiffs, because of the case of Honorius, 
 even if supposed to be an insoluble difficulty? Real 
 science would teach us that in the most certain 
 systems there are residual phenomena which long 
 remain as msoluble difiiculties, without in the least 
 diminishing the certaintj'^ of the system itself 
 
 But, further, the case of Honorius is not an in- 
 soluble difficulty. 
 
 In the judgment of a cloud of the greatest theo- 
 logians of all countries, schools, and languages, since 
 the controversy was opened two hundred years ago, the 
 case of Honorius has been completely solved. Nay 
 more, it has been used with abundant evidence, drawn 
 from the very same acts and documents, to prove the 
 direct contrary hypothesis, namely, the infallibility of 
 the Roman pontiffs. But into this again I shall not 
 enter. It is enough for my present argument to 
 affirm that inasmuch as the case of Honorius has been 
 for centuries disputed, it is disputable. Again, inas- 
 much as it has been interpreted with equal confidence 
 for and against the infallibility of the Roman pontiff — 
 and I may add that they who have cleared Honorius 
 of personal heresy, are an overwhelming majority 
 compared with their opponents, and let it be said for 
 argument's sake, and with more than moderation, that 
 the probability of their interpretations at least equals 
 
118 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 that of the opponents — ^for all these reasons I may, 
 with safety, aifirm that, if the case of Honorius be 
 not solved, it is certainly not insoluble; and that 
 the long, profuse, and confident controversy of men 
 whom I will assume to be sincere, reasonable, and 
 learned on both sides, proves beyond question that 
 the case of Honorius is doubtful. 
 
 I would ask, then, is it scientific, or passionate to 
 reject the cumulus of evidence surrounding the line 
 of two hundred and fifty-six pontiffs, because one 
 case may be found which is doubtful? doubtful, too, 
 be it remembered, only on the theory that history 
 is a wilderness without guide or path; in no way 
 doubtful to those who, as a dogma of faith, believe 
 that the revelation of faith was anterior to its history 
 and is independent of it, being divinely secured by the 
 presence and assistance of Him who gave it. 
 
 And this is a sufficient answer to the case of 
 Honorius, which of all controversies is the most 
 useless, baiTen, and irrelevant. 
 
 I should hardly have thought, at this time of day, 
 that any theologian or scholar would have brought 
 up again the cases of Vigilius, Liberius, John XXII., 
 &c. But as these often-refuted and senseless conten- 
 tions have been renewed, I give in the note references 
 to the works and places in which they are abundantly 
 answered.* 
 
 Such is the first part of the answer to the alleged 
 opposition of history. 
 
 2. We will now proceed to the second and more 
 complete reply. 
 
 * Appendix, p. 223. 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTOKY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 119 
 
 The true and conclusive answer to this objection 
 consists, not in detailed refutation of alleged difficul- 
 ties, but in a principle of faith ; namely, that whenso- 
 ever any doctrine is contained in the Divine tradition 
 of the Church, all difficulties from human history are 
 excluded, as TertuUian lays down, by prescription. 
 The only source of revealed truth is God, the only 
 channel of His revelation is the Church. No human 
 history can declare what is contained in that revela- 
 tion. The Church alone can determine its Umits, and 
 therefore its contents. 
 
 When then the Church, out of the proper fountains 
 of truth, the Word of God, written and unwritten, 
 declares any doctrine to be revealed, no difficulties of 
 human history can prevail against it. I have before 
 said : ' The pretentious historical criticism of these 
 days has prevailed, and will prevail, to undermine the 
 peace and the confidence, ^nd even the faith of some. 
 But the city seated on a hill is still there, high and 
 out of reach. It cannot be hid, and is its own 
 evidence, anterior to its history, and independent of it. 
 Its history is to be learned of itself.' ' It is not there- 
 fore by criticism on past history, but by acts of faith 
 in the livinsr voice of the Church at this hour, that 
 we can know the faith,' * 
 
 On these words of mine, Quirinus makes the fol- 
 lowing not very profound remark : ' The faith which 
 removes mountains will be equally ready — -such is 
 clearly his meaning — to make away with the facts 
 of history. Whether any German Bishop will be 
 found to offer his countrymen these stones to digest, 
 
 * Pastoral, &c., 1869, p. 125- 
 
120 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. . 
 
 time will show.'* Time has shown, faster tlian 
 Quirinus looked for. The German Bishops at Fulda, 
 in their pastoral letter on the Council, speak as follows : 
 ' To maintain that either the one or the other of the 
 doctrines decided by the General Council is not con- 
 tained in the Holy Scripture, and in the tradition of 
 the Church — those two sources of the Catholic faith — 
 or that they are even in opposition to the same, is a 
 first step, irreconcilable with the very first principles 
 of the Catholic Church, which leads to separation 
 from her communion. Wherefore, we hereby declare 
 that the present Vatican Council is a legitimate 
 General Council ; and, moreover, that this Council, as 
 little as any other General Council, has propounded or 
 formed a new doctrine at variance with the ancient 
 teaching, but has simply developed and thrown light 
 upon the old and faithfully-preserved truth contained 
 in the deposit of faith, and in opposition to the errors 
 of the day has proposed it expressly to the belief of 
 all faithful people; and, lastly, that these decrees 
 have received a binding power on all the faithful by 
 the fact of their final publication by the Supreme 
 Head of the Church in solenm form at the Public 
 Session.' f 
 
 Let us, then, go on to examine the relation of 
 history to faith. 
 
 The objection from history has been stated in these 
 words : ' There are grave difiiculties, from the words 
 and acts of the Fathers of the Church, from the 
 genuine documents of history, and from the doctrine 
 
 * Letters from Rome, &c. by Quirinus, second series, p. 348-9. 
 t Times, Sept. 22, 1870. 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTOIiY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 121 
 
 of the Church itself, which must be altogether solved, 
 before the doctrine of the infallibility of the Roman 
 Pontiff can be proposed to the faithful as a doctrine 
 revealed by God.' 
 
 Are we to understand from this that the words and 
 acts of the Fathers, and the documents of human 
 history, constitute the Rule of Faith, or that the Rule 
 of Faith depends upon them, and is either more or 
 less certain as it agrees or disagrees with them ? or, 
 in other words, that the rule of faith is to be tested 
 by history, not history by the rule of faith ? If this 
 be so, then they who so argue lay down as a theo- 
 logical principle that the doctrinal authority of the 
 Church, and therefore the certainty of dogma, depends, 
 if not altogether, at least in part, on human history. 
 From this it would foUoAV that when critical or 
 scientific historians find, or suppose themselves to find, 
 a difiiculty in the writings of the Fathers or other 
 liuman histories, the doctrines proposed by the Church 
 as of Divine revelation are to be called into doubt, 
 unless such difficulties can be solved. The gravity 
 of this objection is such, that the principle on which 
 it rests is undoubtedly either a doctrine of faith or a 
 heresy. 
 
 In order to determine Avhether it be the one or the 
 other, let us examine first what is the authority and 
 place of human history. 
 
 To do so surely and shortl}^, I will transcribe the 
 rules of Melchior Canus, which may be taken as the 
 doctrine of all theological Schools. 
 
 The eleventh chapter of his work ' De Locis Theo- 
 logicis,' is entitled 'de Humanas Historiag Auctoritate.' 
 In it he lays down the following principles : 
 
122 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 1. 'Excepting the sacred authors, no historian can 
 be certain^ that is, sufficient to constitute a certain 
 faith in theological matter. As this is obvious and 
 manifest to every one, it has no need to be proved by 
 our arguments. 
 
 2. ' Historians of weight, and worthy of confidence, 
 as some without doubt have been, both in Ecclesi- 
 astical and in secular matters, furnish to a theologian, 
 a probable ai'gument. 
 
 3. 'If all approved historians of weight concur in 
 the same narrative of an event, then from their 
 authority a certain argument can be educed, so that 
 the dogmas of theology may be confirmed also by 
 reason.' * 
 
 Let us apply these rules to the case of Honorius, 
 and to the alleged historical difficulties. Is this 
 one in which 'all approved historians of weight 
 concur in the same narration of events?' In the 
 case of Honorius, it is well known that great dis- 
 crepancy prevails among historical critics. The his- 
 tories themselves are of doubtful interpretation. 
 But the Rule of Faith is the Divine tradition of 
 revelation proposed to us by the magisterium^ or 
 doctrinal authority, of the Church. Against this, no 
 such historical difficulties can prevail. Into this 
 they cannot enter. They are excluded, as I have 
 said, by a prescription which has its origin in the 
 Divine institution of the Church. The revelation of 
 the faith, and the institution of the Church, were 
 both perfect and complete, not only before human 
 histories existed, but even before the inspired Scrip- 
 
 • Melchior Canus, Loci theol lib, xi. c, 4. 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THK RULE OF FAITH. 123 
 
 tures were written. The Churcli itself is the Divine 
 
 witness, teacher, and judge, of the revelation entrusted 
 
 to it There exists no other. There is no tribunal 
 
 to which appeal from the Church can lie. There is 
 
 no co-ordinate witness, teacher, or judge, who can 
 
 revise, or criticize, or test, the teaching of the Church. 
 
 Tt is sole and alone in the world. And to it may be 
 
 applied the words of St. Paul, as St. John Chrysos- 
 
 tom has applied them : ' The spiritual man judgeth 
 
 all things and he himself is judged by no one.' The 
 
 Ecclesia docens, or the pastors of the Church, with 
 
 their head, are a witness divinely sustained and 
 
 guided to guard and to declare the faith. They 
 
 were antecedent to history, and are independent 
 
 of it. The sources from which they draw their 
 
 testimony of the faith are not in human histories, 
 
 but in Apostolical tradition, in Scripture, in Creeds, 
 
 in the Liturgy, in the public worship and law of 
 
 the Church, in Councils: and in the interpretation 
 
 of all these things by the supreme authority of the 
 
 Church itself. 
 
 The Church has indeed a history. Its course and 
 its acts have been recorded by human hands. It has 
 its annals, like the empire of Rome or of Britain. 
 But its history is no more than its footprints in time, 
 which record indeed, but cause nothing and create 
 nothing. 
 
 The tradition of the Church may be histoi-ically 
 treated ; but between history and the tradition of the 
 Church there is a clear distinction. The school of 
 scientific historians, if I understand it, lays down 
 as a principle that history is tradition, and tradition 
 
124 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. : 
 
 history : that they are one and the same thing under 
 two names. This seems to be the TrpCoTov \}/=uSos of 
 their system; it is a tacit elimination of the super- 
 natural, and of the Divine authority of the Church. 
 
 The tradition of the Church is not human in its 
 origin, in its perpetuity, in its immutability. The 
 matter of that tradition is Divine. But history, ex- 
 cepting so far as it is contained in the tradition of 
 the Church, is not Divine but human, and human 
 in its mutability, uncertainty, and corruption. The 
 matter of it is human. Under the nanje ' tradition ' 
 come two elements altogether Divine ; namely, that 
 which is handed down as the Word of God written 
 and unwritten, and the mode of handing it down, 
 Avhich is the ' magisterium ' or teaching authority of 
 the Church. But against neither the one nor the 
 other of these things can human histories, written by 
 men not inspired by the Spirit of God, not seldom 
 inspired by any other than the Spirit of God, prevail; 
 because against the Church the gates of hell cannot 
 prevail. The visible Church itself is Divine tradition. 
 It is also the Divine depositorj^, and the Divine 
 guardian of Faith. But this Divine tradition contains 
 both the ' Ecclesia docens ' and the ' Ecclesia discens ; ' 
 both infallible, the latter passively, the former pas- 
 sively and actively, by the perpetual assistance of the 
 Spirit of Truth. It contains also the Creed of the 
 Universal Church, the decrees of PontiiFs, the defi- 
 nitions of Councils, the common and constant doctrine 
 of the Church delivered by its living voice in all the 
 world, of which our Divine Lord said, ' He that heareth ■ 
 you, heareth. Me.' * 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 125 
 
 Now if this be so, of what weight or authority is 
 human history in matters of faith ? 
 
 For instance, the Vatican Council affirms that the 
 doctrine of the immutable stability of Peter and of his 
 successors in the faith, and therefore the infallibility 
 of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals, 
 in virtue of a Divine assistance promised to St. Peter, 
 and in Peter to his successors, is a revealed truth. 
 
 What has human history to say to this declaration ? 
 Human history is neither the source nor the chaimel 
 of revelation. 
 
 Scientific history may, however, mean a scientific 
 handling of the Divine tradition and the authoritative 
 documents of the Church. But before these things 
 can be thus scientifically handled, they must be first 
 taken out of the hands of the Church by the hands of 
 the scientific critics. And this simply amounts to 
 saying : ' You are the Catholic Church indeed, and 
 possess these documents and histories of your own 
 past. But either you do not know the meaning of 
 them, because you are not scientific, or you will not 
 declare the real meaning of them, because you are 
 not honest. We are the men; honesty and science is 
 with us, if it will not die with us. Hand over your 
 documents, the forged and the true; the forgeries 
 we will find out; the true we will interpret; and by 
 science we will prove that you have erred and led the 
 world into error ; and therefore that your claim to 
 be a Divine tradition, and to have a Divine authority, 
 is an imposture. The case of Honorius alone is 
 enough. You say that Pope Leo and Pope Agatho 
 interpreted the . Councils of Constantinople so as to 
 
126 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 show, that whatever faults of infirmity were in Hono- 
 rius, a doctrinal heretic he was not. We, by scientific 
 treatment of history, have proved that yonr con- 
 temporaneous Popes were wrong; and we are scien- 
 tifically right in declaring that Honorius was a 
 heretic, not in a large, but in a strict sense, not only 
 as a private person, but as a pope "ex cathedra:" 
 and therefore that the infallibility of the Pope is a 
 fable.' 
 
 But why should the school of scientific history pre- 
 vail over the immemorial tradition of the Church, 
 even in a matter of fact ? 
 
 And how can it prevail over the definition of the 
 Vatican Council, except by claiming to be infallible, 
 or denying the infallibihty of the Catholic Church? 
 
 And here lies the true issue. My purpose has 
 been to bring out this one point, namely, that under 
 this pretext of scientific history lurks an assumption 
 which is purely heretical. It has already destroyed 
 the faith of some ; and Avill that of more. Our duty is 
 to expose it, and to put the faithful on their guard 
 against what I believe to be the last and most subtile 
 form of Protestantism. This school of error has 
 partly sprung up in Germany by contact with Pro- 
 testantism, and partly in England by the agency of 
 those who, being born in Protestantism, have entered 
 the Cathohc Church, but have never been liberated 
 from certain erroneous habits of thought. 
 
 The first form of Protestantism was to appeal from 
 the Divine authority of the Church to the text of 
 Scripture : that is, from the interpretation of the Holy 
 Scriptures traditionally declared by the Church, to the 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTOKY AKD THE RULE OF FAITH. 127 
 
 interpretation of private judgment. This is the pure 
 Lutheran or Calvinistic Protestantism. 
 
 The next was, to appeal from the Divine authority 
 of the Church to the faith of the undivided Church 
 before the separation of the East and West. Such was 
 the Anglican Protestantism of Jewell and others. 
 
 The third was, to appeal from the Divine authority, 
 of the Church to the consent of the Fathers, to the 
 canons of Councils, and the like. Such is the more 
 modern form of Anglicanism; of which I wish to 
 speak with all charity, for the sake of so many whom 
 I respect and love. 
 
 Thus far, we have to deal with those who are not 
 in communion with the Holy See. 
 
 But there has been growing up, both in Germany 
 and in England, a school, if I may so call it, not 
 numerous nor likely to have succession, which places 
 itself in constant antagonism to the authority of the 
 Church, a-nd, to justify its attitude of antagonism, 
 appeals to ' scientific history.' ' The Pope and the 
 Council,' by Janus, and the attacks on Honorius, are its 
 fruits. These were all avowedly written to prevent 
 the definition of the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. 
 It was an attempt to bar the advance of the ' magis- 
 terium Ecclesise ' by scientific history. 
 
 Now, before the definition of the Vatican Council, 
 the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was a doctrine 
 revealed by God, delivered by the universal and 
 constant tradition of the Church, recognised in QEcu- 
 menical Councils, pre-supposed in the acts of the 
 Pontiffs in all ages, taught by all the Saints, defended 
 by every religious Order, and by every theological 
 
128 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 school except one, and in that one disputed only by 
 a minority in number, and during one period of its 
 history; believed, at least implicitly, by all the faithful, 
 and therefore attested by the passive infallibility of 
 the Church in all ages and lands, with the partial and 
 transient limitations already expressed. 
 
 The doctrine was therefore already ohjectively de 
 fide, and also subjectively binding in conscience upon 
 all who knew it to be revealed. 
 
 The definition has added nothing to its intrinsic 
 certainty, for this is derived from Divine revelation. 
 
 It has added only the extrinsic certainty of uni- 
 versal promulgation by the Ecclesia docens, imposing 
 obligation upon all the faithful. 
 
 Hitherto, therefore, the authors of Janus, and the 
 like, who appealed to scientific history, appealed 
 indeed from the doctrinal authority of the Church m 
 a matter of revelation ; but they may be, so far as 
 God knows their good faith, protected by the plea 
 that the doctrine had not yet been promulgated by a 
 definition. 
 
 Nevertheless, the process of their opposition was 
 essentially iieretical. It was an appeal from the 
 traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church, delivered 
 by its' common. and constant teaching, to history in- 
 terpreted by themselves. 
 
 It does not at all diminish the gravity of this act 
 to say that the appeal was not to mere human 
 history, nor to history written by enemies, .but to 
 the acts of Councils, and to the documents of Eccle- 
 siastical tradition. 
 
 This makes the opposition more formal ; for it 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THB RULE OF FAITH. 129 
 
 amounts to an assumption that scientific history- 
 knows the mind of the Church, and is better able 
 to interpret its acts, decrees, condemnations, and 
 documents, either by superiority of scientific criti- 
 cism, or by superiority of moral honesty, than the 
 Church itself. 
 
 But surely the Church best knows its own history, 
 and the true sense of its own acts and documents. 
 
 The Crown of England would make short work of 
 those who should scientifically interpret the unwritten 
 law, or the acts of Parliament, contrary to its judg- 
 ments. 
 
 Do modern critics suppose that the case of Honorius 
 is as new to the Church as it is to them, or that the 
 Church has not a traditional knowledge of the value 
 and bearing of the case upon the doctrines of faith ? 
 
 This, again, in non-Catholics would imply no more 
 than the ordinary want of knowledge as to the Divine 
 nature and office of the Church. In Catholics it 
 would imply, if not heresy, at least a heretical animus. 
 
 If the Church has prohibited, under pain of excom- 
 munication, any appeal from the Holy See to a future 
 General Council, certainly under the same censure it 
 would condemn an appeal from the Council of the 
 Vatican ' to the Councils of Constantinople inter- 
 preted by scientific history. 
 
 It is of faith that the Church alone can declare the 
 contents and the limits of revelation, and can alone 
 determine the extent of its own infallibility. And 
 as it alone can judge of the true sense and interpre- 
 tation of Holy Scripture, it alone can judge of the 
 
 K 
 
130 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 true sense and interpretation of the acts of its own 
 Pontiffs and Councils. 
 
 Under the same head, therefore, and under the same 
 censure, come all appeals from the Divine authority of 
 the Church at this hour, under whatsoever pretext 
 or to whatsoever tribunal; whether to Councils in 
 the future or the past, or to Scripture or the Fathers, 
 or to unauthentic interpretations of the acts of Coun- 
 cils, or to documents of human history. 
 
 This being so, it cannot be said that there exist 
 grave difficulties from the words and acts of the 
 Fathers, from the genuine documents of history, and 
 from the Catholic doctrine itself, which if not solved, 
 would render it impossible to propose to the faithful, 
 as a doctrine, the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; 
 because it was contained, before definition, in the 
 universal and constant teaching of the Church as a 
 truth of revelation. Who is the competent judge to 
 declare whether such difficulties really exist? or, if 
 they exist, what is the value of them ; whether they 
 be grave or hght, relevant or irrelevant? Surely, it 
 belongs to the Church to judge of these things. 
 They are so inseparably in contact with dogma, that 
 the deposit of faith cannot be guarded or expounded 
 without judging of them and pronouncing on them. 
 And it is passing strange if the Church should be 
 incompetent to judge of these things, and the scien- 
 tific historians alone competent; that is, if the Church 
 shotild be fallible in dogmatic facts, and the scientific 
 historians infallible. What is this but Lutheranism 
 in histoiy? In those that are without, this is con- 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE RULE OF FAITH, 131 
 
 sistent: in Catholics, it would be not only incon- 
 sistent but a heresy. 
 
 The CouncU of the Vatican has with great precision 
 condemned this error in these words: 'Catholics can 
 have no just cause of calling into doubt the faith they 
 have received from the teaching authority (magis- 
 terium) of the Church, and of suspending their assent, 
 until they shall have completed a scientific demon- 
 stration of the truth of their faith,'* 
 
 Again, the Council lays down, in respect to sciences 
 properly so called, a principle which a fortiori 
 applies to ' historical science,' with signal impropriety 
 so called, by declaring ' that every assertion contrary 
 to the truth of enlightened faith is false , , . Where- 
 fore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to 
 defend as legitimate conclusions of science all such 
 opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrine 
 of faith, especially if they have been condemned by 
 the Church, but are altogether bound to hold them 
 to be errors, which put on the fallacious appearance 
 of truth.' * 
 
 I have said that the treatment of history can only 
 be called science with signal impropriety; and for 
 the following reasons : 
 
 According to both philosophers and theologians, 
 science is the habit of the mind conversant with ne- 
 cessary truth ; that is, truth which admits of demon- 
 stration, and of the certainty which excludes the 
 possibility of its contradictory being true. 
 
 According to the scholastic philosophy, science is 
 defined as follows : 
 
 * Constitutio D.e Fide Catholica. Appendix, p. 191. 
 
132 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Viewed subjectively, it is ' the certain and evident 
 knowledge of the ultimate reasons or principles of 
 truth attained by reasoning.' 
 
 Viewed objectively, it is ' the system of known 
 truths belonging to the same order as a whole, and 
 depending only upon one principle.' 
 
 This is founded on the definitions of Aristotle. In 
 the sixth book of the Ethics, chapter iii* he says : 
 ' From this it is evident what science is : to speak accu- 
 rately, and not to follow mere similitudes ; for we all 
 understand that what we know cannot be otherwise 
 than we know it. For whatsoever may or may not 
 be, as a practical question, is not known to be, or not 
 to be.' 
 
 Such also is the definition of St. Thomas. He says : 
 'Whatsoever truths are truly known as by certain 
 knowledge (ut certa scientia) are known by resolution 
 into their first principles, which of themselves are im- 
 mediately present to the intellect ... So that it is 
 impossible that the same thing should be the object 
 both of faith and of science, that 4S, because of the 
 obscurity of the principles of faith.' He nevertheless 
 calls theology a science. But Vasquez shows from 
 Cajetan that this is to be understood not simply but 
 relatively, non simpliciter, sed secundum quid. The 
 Thomists generally hold theology to be a science; but 
 imperfect in its kind. 
 
 Gregory of Valentia sums up the opinions of the 
 Schools, and concludes as follows : ' That theology is 
 not science is taught by Durandus, Ockam, Gabriel, 
 and others, whose opinions I hold to be the truest.' 
 He adds : ' Though it be not a proper science, it is a 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTOEY AND THE RULE OF FAITH. 133 
 
 habit absolutely more perfect than any science ; ' and 
 again : ' Yet, nevertheless, by the best of rights, it may 
 be called a science, because absolutely it is a habit 
 more perfect than any science described by philoso- 
 phers.'* 
 
 Theology then may be called, though improprie^ a 
 science. First, because it is a science, if not as to its 
 principles, at least as to its form, method, process, de- 
 velopment, and transmission. And secondly, because 
 though its principles are not evident, they are, in all the 
 higher regions of it, infallibly certain; and because 
 many of them are the necessary, eternal, and incor- 
 ruptible truths, ■which according to Aristotle, generate 
 science. 
 
 If then theology, which in certainty is next to science 
 properly so called, is to be called science only impro- 
 prie, notwithstanding the infallible certainty and im- 
 mutable nature of its ultimate principles, how can 
 human history, written by uninspired human authors, 
 transmitted by documents open to corruption, change, 
 and mutilation, without custody or security, except 
 the casual tradition of human testimony and human 
 criticism, open to perversion by infirmity and passion 
 of every kind, — how can such subject-matter yield 
 principles of certainty which excludes contradiction, 
 and ultimate truths immediate to the intellect and 
 evident in themselves ? 
 
 If by historical science be meant an increased pre- 
 cision in examining evidence and in testing documents, 
 and in comparing narratives together, we will gladly 
 use the word by courtesy ; but if more than this be 
 
 * Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, p. 107-112. 
 
134 TIJE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 meant, if a claim be set up for history, which is not 
 admitted even for theology, then in the name of truth, 
 both Divine and human, let the pretence be exposed. 
 And yet for many years these pretensions have been 
 steadily advancing. Many people have been partly 
 deceived, and partly intimidated by them. The con- 
 fident and compassionate tone in which certain writers 
 have treated all who differ from them, has won the 
 reward which often follows upon any signal au- 
 dacity. But when Catholics once understand that 
 this school among us elevates the certainty of history 
 above the certainty of faith, and appeals from the tra- 
 ditional doctrine of the Church to its own historical 
 science, their instincts will recoil from it as irrecon- 
 cilable with faith. 
 
 There is something happily inimitable in the con- 
 ceit of the words with which Janus opens his preface : 
 
 ' The immediate object of this Avork is to investi- 
 gate by the light of history those questions which we 
 are credibly informed are to be decided at the (Ecu- 
 menical Council already announced. And as we 
 have endeavoured to fulfil this task by direct reference 
 to original authorities^ it is not, perhaps, too much to 
 hope that our labours will attract attention in scien- 
 tific circles; and serve as a contribution to ecclesi- 
 astical history.' 
 
 Janus goes on to say, ' But this work aims also at 
 something more than the mere calm and aimless ex- 
 hibition of historical events : the reader will readily 
 pei'ceive that it has a far wider scope, and deals with 
 ecclesiastical politics; and in one word, that it is a 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AND THE EXILE OF FAITH. 135 
 
 pleading for very life, an appeal to the thinkers 
 among believing Christians,' &c.* 
 
 We have here an unconscious confession. ' Janus ' 
 is strictly an appeal from the light of faith to the 
 light of history, that is, from the supernatural to the 
 natui'al order ; a process, as I have said again and 
 again, consistent in Protestants and Rationalists : in 
 Catholics, simply heretical. 
 
 The direct reference to original authorities is, of 
 course, a prerogative of Janus. Who else but he 
 ever could, or would, or did, refer to the original 
 authorities ? 
 
 Again, it is a worls addressed to scientific circles. 
 Lord Bacon describes a school of philosophers who, 
 when they come abroad, lift their hand in the attitude 
 of benediction, ' with the look of those who pity men.' 
 Is science in the Catholic Church confined to ' circles ? ' 
 Is it an esoteric perfection which belongs to the 
 favoured and to the few who assemble in chambers and 
 secret places? Our Lord has warned us that the 
 science of God has a wider expanse of light. In truth, 
 this science is a modern Gnosticism, superior to 
 the Church, contemptuous of faith, and profoundly 
 egotistical. It appeals to the thinkers among believing 
 Christians : that is, to the intellectual few among the 
 herd of mere believers. 
 
 But finally the truth escapes : the aim of the book is 
 not merely calm and aimless. It deals with ecclesi- 
 astical politics; that is, it was an organised, combined, 
 and deliberate atteiaiipt to hinder the Vatican Council 
 
 * The Pope and the Council, by Janus. Preface, p. xiii. 
 London, 1869. 
 
136 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 in its liberty of action, and in the same breath, before 
 the Council had assembled, to deny its CEcumenicity on 
 the ground that it would not be free. 
 
 The book concludes as follows : 
 
 ' That is quite enough — it means this, that what- 
 soever course the Synod may take, one quality can 
 never be predicated of it, namely, that is has been a 
 really free Council. Theologians and canonists de- 
 clare that without complete freedom, the decisions of 
 the Council are not binding, and the assembly is only 
 a pseudo-synod.' * 
 
 This was written in Germany during the summer 
 of last year. The English translation was published 
 by a Protestant bookseller in London in the month 
 of November. I bought the Italian translation in 
 the same month in Florence, on my way to the opening 
 of the Council. French and Spanish bishops told me, 
 on arriving, that they had translations in their own 
 language. And in Spain and Italy copies were sent 
 to the bishops through the channels of those Govern- 
 ments. 
 
 We have here the latest example of passionless 
 science. 
 
 Of the literary merits of the book, I will only say 
 first, that for its accuracy a fair account has been 
 taken in a pamphlet entitled 'A few Specimens of 
 Scientific History from Janus ; ' and for profoundness 
 that it is simply . shallow, compared with Jewell's 
 ' Defence of the Apology,' Barrow ' On the Pope's 
 Supremacy,' Crakenthorp's ' Yigihus Dormitans,' 
 Bramhall's ' Schism Guarded,' Thorndike's ' Epilogue,' 
 
 * Ibid. p. 42.'). 
 
SCIENTIFIC HISTORY AKD THE RULE OF FAITH. 137 
 
 Brown's ' Fasciculus Rerum,' &c., to say nothing of 
 the Magdeburg Centuriators, or even Mosheim's or 
 Gieseler's Histories. 
 
 The old Protestant and especially the Anglican 
 anticatholic writers are solid, learned, and ponderous, 
 compared with Janus. They have also the force of 
 visible sincerity. Used against the Church from 
 without, their arguments are consistent and weighty ; 
 used by professing Catholics within the unity of the 
 Church, they are powerless in controversy, and 
 heretical in their effects and consequences. 
 
 I speak thus plainly. Reverend and dear Brethren, 
 because you are charged with the cure of souls; and 
 in this country, where reading, speaking, writing has 
 no rule or limit, those committed to your charge will 
 be in daily temptation. They cannot close their 
 eyes ; and if they could, they cannot close their ears. 
 What they may refuse to read they cannot fail to hear. 
 It is the trial permitted for the purity and confirma- 
 tion of their faith. By your vigilant care they will 
 be what the Catholics of England, in the judgment 
 often expressed to me in other countries, already are — 
 and I would we were so in the degree in which others 
 beheve — that is, firm, fearless, intelligent in faith, and 
 not ashamed to confess it before men. Never- 
 theless the trial is severe for many. And, as I have 
 said before, the Council will be ' in ruinam et in re- 
 surrectionem multorum.' Some who think them- 
 selves to stand will fall; and some, of whom we per- 
 haps have no hope, will rise to fill their place. 
 Therefore we must be faithful and fearless for the 
 truth. 
 
138 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 The book ' Janus ' warns us of two duties. The 
 one, to watch against this Gnostic inflation of scientific 
 conceit which is the animus of heresy ; the other, to 
 warn all Catholics that to deny the OEcumenicity or 
 the freedom of the Council which the Vicar of Christ 
 has already confirmed in all its acts hitherto complete, 
 or the obHgation imposed upon the faithful by those 
 acts, is implicitly to deny the Infallibility of the 
 Church : and that to doubt, or to propagate doubts, of 
 its CEcumenicity and freedom, or of the obligations of 
 its acts, is at least the first step to that denial. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 139 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONCLUSION. TRADITION OF ENGLAND. GREATER UNITY OF 
 FAITH RESULTING FROM THE DEFINITION. 
 
 In an Qllcumenical Council, Bishops are witnesses of 
 the Faith of their respective Churches. Not indeed as 
 if they were representatives or delegates of their 
 flocks ; a theory strangely advanced by some writers 
 who counted up the population of what they were 
 pleased to call the greater cities, in order to give 
 weight to the testimony of their Bishops as against 
 that of others. In this they simply betrayed the fact 
 that they were resting upon the natural order, and 
 arguing, not on principles of faith, but of the political 
 world. 
 
 Bishops are witnesses, primarily and chiefly, not of 
 the subjective faith of their flocks, which may vary or 
 be obscured, but of the objective faith of the Church 
 committed to their trust, when by consecration they 
 became witnesses, doctors, and judges. They were 
 by consecration admitted to the Ecclesia docens., and 
 the Divine Tradition of the Faith was entrusted to 
 their custody. But this is one and the same in the 
 humblest Vicar Apostolic, and in the Bishop of the 
 most populous and imperial city in Christendom. 
 
 In the course of the discussions, testimony was 
 given to the unbroken tradition of the doctrine of 
 Papal InfalUbility in Italy, Spain, Ireland, and many 
 
140 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 other countries. It will not therefore be without its 
 use and interest, if I add briefly a few evidences of 
 the unbroken tradition of England as to the infalli- 
 bility of the Roman Pontiff. It would be out of 
 place in this Pastoral to do more than offfer to you a 
 few passages ; but I would wish to stir up some one, 
 who has time for such research, to collect and publish 
 a complete catena of evidence from the writers before 
 and since the Reformation ; which will show that the 
 Gallicanism, or worse than Gallicanism, of Cisalpine 
 Clubs and Political Emancipationists was no more than 
 the momentary aberration of a few minds under the 
 stress of penal laws. They are abnormal instances in 
 the noble fidelity of the Catholics of England. 
 
 As to the Bishops and Doctors of the English Church 
 before the Reformation, I may first remind you of 
 the words of St. Anselm, St. Thomas of Canterbury, 
 and Bradwardine, three primates of England, given in 
 the Pastoral of last year. To these may be added 
 St. .^Elred of Rivaulx,* John of Salisbury, f Robert 
 Pullen, J Thomas of Evesham, § Robert Grostete,|| 
 Roger Bacon, ^ Scotus, ** Bachon,ff Holcot, JJ 
 Kichard Ralph, §§ and Waldensis. jl|| In these writers 
 the Primacy of the Pontifi\, and the obligation, under 
 
 * Bibl. Max. Patrum, torn, xxiii. pp. 57, 58. Ed. Lugd. 1677. 
 
 t Polycrates, lib. vi. c. 24, p. 61. Ed. Giles. 
 
 X In Sentent. b. viii. c. iii. 
 
 § In Vita Sti. Egwini, sect. vi. 
 
 II Epp. 72 and 127. ^ Opus. c. xiv. 
 
 ** In Sent. iv. dist. vi. 9, 8. 
 
 tt Proleg. in Lib. iv. Sentent. %\ In Lib. iv. Sentent. 
 
 §§ Summa in qiiEestionibus Armenorum, lib. vii. c. 5. 
 
 Illl Doctrina Eidei, lib. ii. caj.p. 47, 48. 
 
KESULT or THE DEFINITION, 141 
 
 pain of sin, to obey his judgments and doctrines, is 
 laid down with a perfect unconsciousness that any- 
 Catholic could dispute the Divine certainty of his 
 guidance. The Vatican definition has defined the 
 reason of this implicit faith, by declaring that in the 
 primacy there is a charisma which preserves the 
 supreme doctrinal authority of the Pontiff from error 
 in faith or morals. 
 
 But I leave to others to complete this part of the 
 subject. I will go on to the period of the Reforma- 
 tion, 
 
 The controversy against the authority of Rome 
 drew out more explicit statements from Sir Thomas 
 More and Cardinal Fisher. 
 
 More, writing against Luther, says, 'Judge, I pray 
 thee, reader, with what sincerity Father Tippler 
 treats this place of Jerome, when he (Jerome) says it 
 is enough for him if the Pope of Rome approve his 
 faith; that is, openly declaring that it cannot be 
 doubted that he is sound in faith who agrees with 
 that See] than which what could he more splendidly 
 say? Yet Father Tippler Luther and others so dis- 
 semble about this as to try to cloud the reader also 
 with darkness, and to lead away the minds of men 
 elsewhere, that they may not remember anything.'* 
 
 * ' Quseso lector judica quam sincere pater Potator hunc locum 
 Hieronymi tractet : cum ille dicat, satis esse sibi si suam fidem 
 comprobaret papa Eomanus : nimirum aperte significans, non du- 
 bitandum esse ilium recte sentire de fide, qui cum ilia sede con- 
 sentiat : quo quid potuisset dicere magnificentius ? istud adeo 
 dissimulat pater Potator Lutherus ut etiam tenebras lectori conetur 
 offundere et animos hominum verbis alio, ne quid recordentur, 
 abducere.' — Morus, In Lutherum, lib. ii. cap. iv. p. 87. Louvain, 
 1566. 
 
142 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Cardinal Fisher also, writing against Luther, says : 
 ' One thing I know, that Augustine everywhere makes 
 Peter first and Prince of the Apostles, and Teacher 
 and Head of the rest, in whom also he says the rest 
 are contained, as in the head of any family the mul- 
 titude (of the family) are all contained.'* And 
 further he adds, 'Where else dost thou believe 
 the faith to abide, save in the Church of Christ? 
 " I," said Christ to Peter, " have prayed for thee 
 that thy faith fail not." The faith of Peter, do 
 not doubt it, will always abide in the succession of 
 Peter, which is the Church.' f This is precisely the 
 Vatican definition, ' Romanum Pontificem ea infalli- 
 bilitate poUere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam 
 suam instructam esse voluit.' 
 
 Cardinal Pole, after describing the conduct of Peter 
 in the Council at Jerusalem, goes on to say, ' The 
 same also the successors of Peter, following his faith, 
 have done in all other Councils ; in which is found 
 much more signally than in Peter's lifetime, of what 
 kind are the efforts of Satan, who desires to sift the 
 Church of God, and how great is the efficacy of this 
 special remedy in repressing them; namely, that which 
 Christ declared when he turned to Peter, in these 
 
 * ' Unum soio, quod Augustinus ubique Petrum facit Primum 
 et Principem Apostolorum ac Magislrum et Caput CKterorum, in 
 quo et csBteros contineri dicit, sicut in capite cujusvia familise re- 
 liqua comprehenditur multitudo.' — Joannis Eoffensis Confutatio 
 Errorum Lutheri, art. xxv. ad finem, in Eocaberti Bihlioth. Pontif. 
 torn. xiv. p. 582. 
 
 ■j" ' Ubi credis alibi manere fidem quam in Ecclesia Christi ? Ego, 
 inquit Christus ad Petrum, rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua. 
 Petri fides ne dubita semper in successione Petri manebit, quae est 
 Ecclesia.' — Id. art. xxvii. ad fin. in Eocaberto, torn. xiv. p. 587. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 143 
 
 ■words, " And thou, being once converted, strengthen 
 thy brethren." For let all remedies be found -which 
 at any time the Church has tried against the malice 
 of Satan, who at all times assails it with all kinds of 
 temptations ; none certainly will be ever found to be 
 compared with this, which is wont to be used in 
 General Councils ; namely, that all the Bishops of all 
 the Churches, as the brethren of Peter, be confirmed 
 by his successors, professors of the same faith.'* 
 
 In like manner, Harding, Jewel's antagonist, writes: 
 ' The Pope succeedeth Peter in authority and power. 
 For whereas the sheep of Christ continue to the 
 world's end, he is not wise that thinketh Chiist to 
 have made a shepherd temporary or for a time over 
 His perpetual flock. To Peter He gave that He ob- 
 tained by His prayer made to the Father, that his 
 faith should not fail. Again, to him He gave grace 
 thus to perform, the performance whereof at him He 
 required, to wit, that he confirmed and strengthened 
 his brethren, wherefore the grace of stedfastness of 
 faith, and of confirming the wavering and doubtful 
 
 * ' Idem etiam Petri successores, fidem ejus secuti, fecere in 
 reliqtiis omnibus conciliia, in quibus multo illustrius quam vivo 
 Petro eompertum est, et cujusmodi esset Satanse conatus Ecclesiam 
 Dei cribrare expetentis, et quanta ad eos reprimendos extiterit vis 
 Imjus singulaxis remedii, quod Christus ad Petrum sermonem con- 
 vertens verbis illis indicavit : Et tu aliquando conversus confirma 
 fratres tuos. Ut enim omnia remedia qu^rantur quae ullo tempore 
 Ecclesia est experta contra Satanse malitiam nunquam non omni 
 tentationis genere earn aggredientis : nullum certs reperietur quod 
 cum hac comparari possit, quod in conciliis generalibus adhiberi est 
 solitum, ut singuli singularum Ecclesiarum episcopi, tanquam Petri 
 fratres, confirmarentur per ejus successores eandem fidem profi- 
 tentes.' — Card. Polus, De Summo Pontifice, cap. iv. (Koccaberti, 
 Bihlioth. Pontif. tom. xviii. p. 146.) 
 
144 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 in faith, every Pope obtaineth of the Holy Ghost for 
 the benefit of the Church. And so the Pope, although 
 he may err by personal error in his own private 
 judgment as a man, and as a particular doctor in his 
 own opinion, yet as he is Pope, the successor of Peter, 
 the Vicar of Christ in earth, the shepherd of the 
 Universal Church, in public judgment, in deliberation 
 and definitive sentence, he never erreth, nor never 
 erred. For whensoever he ordaineth or determineth 
 anything by his high bishoply authority, intending 
 to bind Christian men to perform or believe the same, 
 he is always governed and holpen with the grace and 
 favour of the Holy Ghost. This is to Catholic 
 doctors a very certainty, though to such doughty 
 clerks as ye are it is but a matter of nothing and a 
 very trifling tale.'* 
 
 Campian, answering Whitaker, says, 'Nor, as you 
 slander us, do we depend on the voice of one man, 
 but rather on the Divine promise of Christ made to 
 Peter and his successors, for the stability of whose 
 faith He prayed to the Father. ..." I have prayed 
 for thee, Peter," He said, "that thy faith fail not." 
 The fruit of which prayer, what follows plainly 
 enough shows, belongs not to Peter alone, but to his 
 successors also. . . . For since the Church was not 
 to become extinct with Peter, but to endure unto the 
 end of the world, the same stability in faith was even 
 more necessary to Peter's successors, the Roman 
 Pontiff's, in proportion as they were weaker than he, 
 
 * Confutation of a Book entitled ' An Apology of the Church of 
 England,' by Thomas Harding, D.D., p. 335 a. Dedicated to the 
 Queen. Antwerp, 1565. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 145 
 
 and were to be assailed with mightier engines by 
 tyrants, heretics, and other impious men. As, there- 
 fore, Peter when converted, confirmed the Apostles 
 his brethren, the Pontiffs also must confirm their 
 brethren the rest of the Bishops.' Afterwards, he 
 says, ' Under his guidance they cannot err from the 
 right path of the faith.' * 
 
 These evidences are more than enough to show 
 what was the faith of the Church in England in the 
 sixteenth century, that is, in the controversies of the 
 Reformation. They show what was the faith, for 
 which the Catholics of England at that day stood, 
 and suffered. 
 
 In the seventeenth century, we may take Nicholas 
 Sanders as our first witness. He writes in his work 
 ' De Clavi David ' : ' But we freely declare, and what 
 in words we declare we prove by fact, that the suc- 
 cessor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, in expounding 
 to the Bishops the faith of Christ, has never erred, 
 nor has ever either been the author of any heresy, or 
 has lent his authority to any heretic for the promul- 
 gation of heresy.'! 
 
 Kelhson, President of the College at Douai in 
 1605, writes as follows : ' For in two senses Peter 
 may be sayd to be the rocke of the Church : first, as 
 he is a particular man, and so if the Church had been 
 
 * Confutatio Kesponsionis G. Whitakeri, p. 44. Parisiis 1582. 
 
 t ' At vero nos libere dicimus, et quod verbo dicimus re ipsa 
 comprobamus, Petri successorem Episcopiim Eomanum in expo- 
 nenda Episcopis fide Christi nunquam errasse, nunquam aut uUius 
 bseresis auctorem fuisse, aut alii hseretico ad jpromulgandum hiB- 
 resim suam prsebuisse auctoritatem.' — Nicolas Sanderus, de Clavi 
 David, lib. t.. cap. iv. 
 
 L 
 
146 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 built upon him, it must have fallen with him ; se- 
 condly, as upon a publique person and supreme 
 Pastor, who is to have successors, to whom constancie 
 in faith is promised, by which they shal uphold the 
 Church: and so the Church dyeth not with Peter, 
 but keepeth her standing upon successors. And be- 
 cause Peter and his successors^ by their indeficient 
 faith, in which as supreme pastors they shal never 
 erre, do uphold the Church, therefore the Fathers 
 alleaged sometimes say that the Church is builded on 
 Peter, sometimes on his faith, as it is the faith of the 
 supreme head : which in effect is al one. For if Peter 
 upholde the Church by his indeficient faith which he 
 teacheth, then Peter upholdeth the Church, as he 
 hath assured faith, and his faith upholdeth the Church, 
 not howsoever but as it is the faith of Peter, and the 
 supreme head, whose faith especially which he teacheth 
 out of his chaire (that is, not as a particular man only, 
 proposing his opinion ; but as a publique Doctor and 
 chiefe Pastor) defineth and commandeth what al 
 Christians ought to beleeve, shal never faile; and 
 consequently the Church which relyeth on his defi- 
 nition, though she may be shaken, yet shal never be 
 overthrowne.' * 
 
 In a work published by S. N,, Doctor of Divinity, 
 1634, we read : ' The same is proved by all such texts 
 as convince that the head or chief Bishop of the 
 Church cannot err in defining matters of faith. 
 " Simpn, Simon, Satan hath desired you .that he 
 miglit winnow you as wheat, but 1 have prayed for 
 
 * A Survey of tlie New Religion, set forth by Matthew Kellison, 
 first book, chap. vi. p. 74. Doway, 1605. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 147 
 
 lee that thy faith may not fail." Here Christ 
 rayed not for all the Church, but in particular for 
 
 eter, as all the words show : Simon— for thee thy 
 
 lith — thy brethren : also, whereas our Saviour began 
 ) speak in the plural number, " Satan hath desired 
 ) have you," &c., forthwith He changeth His manner 
 I speaking and saith, " but I have prayed for thee." 
 urther, He prayeth for him to whom He saith, " and 
 lou sometimes converted," which cannot agree to the 
 hole Church, except we will say the whole Church 
 ) have been first perverted, which is many ways 
 ntrue. But now that which Christ prayed for is 
 spressly that his faith should not fail, and then 
 ieing this prayer for Peter was for the good of the 
 hurch, the Devil still desiring to winnow the faith- 
 il, it thereof foUoweth that she never wanteth one 
 ^hose faith may not fail, by whom she may be con- 
 rmed.' * 
 
 Southwell, or Bacon, who wrote in 1638, affirms : 
 That the Roman Pontiff, out of Council, is infallible 
 1 his definitions.' He adds : ' It is clearly proved from 
 diat is already said, he who is the foundation-stone 
 f the Church, actually and always infusing into it 
 rmness against the gates of hell and heresies : he 
 rhois Pastor not of this or that place, but of the 
 rhole fold : and therefore in all things necessary to 
 alvation is bound to feed, govern, and direct, cannot 
 rr in judgment of faith. . . But the Supreme 
 'ontiff is such a Rock and Pastor, as has been mani- 
 3stly proved; therefore he cannot err in judgment 
 f faith.' This he proves, among other evidence, by 
 
 * The Triple Cord, p. 72. 1634 
 
148 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the pi'omise of our. Lord : ' I have prayed for tliee,' &c., 
 and adds, ' What was said to Peter as pastor was said 
 also to the Roman Pontiffs, as has been abundantly 
 proved.' * 
 
 Nor was this tradition broken, though the depres- 
 sion which followed the Revolution of 1688 reduced 
 the Catholics to silence. In the eighteenth century, 
 the following testimonies will suffice. More might, 
 no doubt, with ease be found; but for our present 
 purpose no more are needed. First, of Alban Butler, 
 who assuredly represents the English Catholics of his 
 times, we read as follows : 'It is evident from his 
 Epitome de sex prioribus conciliis cecumenicis in calce 
 tractatus de Incarnatione, that he had the highest 
 veneration for the Holy See, and for him who sits in 
 the chair of St. Peter; that he constantly held and 
 maintained the rights and singular prerogatives of 
 St. Peter and his successors in calling, presiding over, 
 and confirming, general or oecumenical councils ; the 
 Pope's superiority over the whole church and over 
 the whole college of bishops, and over a general 
 council ; the irreformahility of his doctrinal decisions 
 in point of faith and morals ; his supreme power to 
 dispense (when there is cause) in the canons of 
 general councils ; in short, the plenitude of his au- 
 thority over the whole Church without exception or 
 limitation. Nihil excipitur uhi distinguitur nihil. S< 
 Bernard, 1. ii. de Consid. c. 8.'f What gives additional 
 force to this is, that Alban Butler not only held but 
 
 * Eegula viva, seu Analysis Pidei, p. 41. Antwerpise, 1638. 
 t An Account of the Life and Writings of the Rev. Alban Butler, 
 p 16. London, 1799. 
 
RESULT OP THE DEFINITION. 149 
 
 taught these doctrines in his theological treatises : and 
 that we receive this testimony from the pen of Charles 
 Butler, who of all men is least to be suspected of 
 ultramontanism . 
 
 In the year 1790, when a certain number of 
 Catholics, weary of penal laws, fascinated by Parlia- 
 ment, and perhaps intimidated by the Protestant 
 ascendency, began to explain away Catholic doctrines, 
 and to describe themselves by a nomenclature which 
 I will not here repeat, the Rev. Charles Plowden 
 published a work, the very title of which is a witness 
 and an argument. It is called ' Considerations on 
 the Modern Opinion of the Fallibility of the Holy See 
 in the Decision of Dogmatical Questions.' He opens 
 his first chapter with these words : ' Before the 
 Declaration of the Galilean Clergy in 1682, it was 
 the general persuasion of Roman Catholics that the 
 solemn decisions of the Holy See on matters of 
 dogmatical and moral import are infallible. Since 
 that epoch the contrary opinion is asserted in many 
 schools in France, it has been imported with other 
 French rarities into this kingdom, and it now appears 
 to be the prevailing system, especially among those 
 members of our Catholic clergy and laity who have 
 studied little of either.' He then most solidly 
 proves what in these Pastorals has been so often 
 asserted, that, with the exception of the modern 
 opinion of the local and transient Galilean School, 
 the universal and traditionary faith of the Church in 
 the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff has never been 
 obscured. Plowden then proceeds to censure the 
 
150 THE VATICAN COUNCITj. 
 
 oath which certain Catholics were at that time pro- 
 posing to themselves and others. He says : — 
 
 ' The clause which regards Papal Infallibility is a 
 demonstration that the oath was not calculated to 
 accommodate the bulk of Eoman Catholics, since the 
 very respectable number who believe the solemn and 
 canonical decrees of the Pope on matters of faith to 
 be irreformable can never conscientiously pronounce 
 it. If the interpreters of the oath tell us that the 
 framers of it did not intend to exclude the belief of 
 infallibility in dogmatical decisions, we must answer 
 them that the admission of such a tacit distinction 
 would justly lay us open to swearing to what we do 
 not believe. No infallibility and som.e infallibility will 
 always be contradictories. The Catholic public may 
 already know that I think the modern opinion of 
 papal fallibility in decisions of faith to be ill grounded 
 and dangerous, and it appears to me that the doctrine 
 of infallibility in these matters, though not decided, 
 might easily be proved to be that of the Catholic 
 Church and therefore true. It must not then be 
 renounced. The addition of personal in the address 
 does not remove the difficulty. For if the Supreme 
 Head of the Church be infallible in his solemn dog- 
 matical decisions, this infaUibility attaches to his 
 person. It was promised and given to St. Peter, and 
 it subsists in his lawful successors. It does not 
 belong in solidum to the particular Church of Eome 
 as an aggregate of many individuals; it does not 
 belong to the chair or see of Rome as a thing distinct 
 from the Pope. The distinction between the sedes 
 and the sedens is a modern subterfuge of the Jan- 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. ' 151 
 
 seiiists, unknown to antiquity, whicli always under- 
 stood the person of the chief Bishop, whether in 
 words they attribute inerrancy directly to him or 
 metaphorically to his see. If the Pope be then in- 
 fallible, he \& personally infallible.'* 
 
 I will now add only two more witnesses who bore 
 their testimony in the last century, but lived on into 
 the present. Bishop Hay, who died in 1811, and 
 Bishop Milner, who died in 1826. 
 
 Bishop Hay, in his ' Sincere Christian,' writes as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' Q. 27. On what grounds do these divines found 
 their opinion, who believe that the Pope himself, 
 when he speaks to all the faithful as head of the 
 Church, is infallible in what he teaches ? 
 
 ' A. On several very strong reasons, both from 
 scripture, tradition, and reason.' 
 
 He then draws out these three fully and abun- 
 dantly; and this done, he asks: — 
 
 ' Q. 31. But what proofs do the others bring for 
 their opinion that the head of the Church is not 
 infallible ? 
 
 ''A. They bring not one text of Scripture to 
 prove it,' &c. 
 
 Lastly, Bishop Milner in his book called, ' Eccle- 
 siastical Democracy detected,' published in 1793, 
 after saying in the text, ' The controversy of the 
 Pope's inerrancy is here entirely out of the question,' 
 adds the following note : ' It is true I was educated 
 in the belief of this inerrancy; nor have I yet seen 
 
 * Observations on the Oath proposed to the English Eoman 
 Catholics, by Charles Plowden, p. 43. London, 1790. 
 
152 THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 
 
 sufficient argument to change my opinion. . . • But 
 if the layman, who never fails to ridicule the doctrine 
 in question, is willing fairly to contest it, he knows 
 where to meet with an antagonist ready to engage 
 with him. Against one assertion however of this 
 writer, which insinuates the political danger resulting 
 from the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, I will hurl 
 defiance at him; nothing being more easy to show, 
 than that no greater danger can result to the State 
 from admitting the inerrancy of the Pope than from 
 admitting that of the Church itself.' * 
 
 1 only hope we shall now hear no more that the 
 CathoHcs of England have not beheved, or have 
 not been taught, this doctrine ; nor that the ' Old 
 Catholics ' of England refuse to believe the new 
 opinions, and the like. We have heard too much 
 of this : and the honoured name of those who 
 through three hundred years of persecution have 
 kept the faith, has been too much dishonoured by im- 
 puting to them that they are not faithful to the 
 Martyrs, Confessors, and Doctors of England. The 
 faith of St. Anselm and St. Thomas, of Thomas More 
 and Cardinal Fisher, of Hay and Milner, is the faith 
 of the Catholics of England. Whoso departs from it 
 forfeits his share in the inheritance of fidelity they 
 have handed down. 
 
 I will now add a few words on the disastrous con- 
 sequences predicted from the Definition, 
 
 We were told that the Definition of the Infallibility 
 would alienate the fairest provinces of the Catholic 
 Church, divide the Church into parties, drive the 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Democracy detected^ p. 98. London, 1793. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 153 
 
 scientific and independent into separation, and set 
 the reason of mankind against the superstitions of 
 Rome. We were told of learned professors, theolo- 
 gical faculties, entire universities, multitudes of laity, 
 hundreds of clergy, the flower of the episcopate, who 
 were prepared to protest as a body, and to secede. 
 There was to be a secession in France, in Germany, 
 in Austria, in Hungary. The ' Old Catholics ' of 
 England would never hear of this new dogma, and 
 with difficulty could be made to hold their peace. 
 Day by day, these illusions have been sharply dis- 
 pelled; but not a word of acknowledgment is to be 
 heard. A professor is suspended a divinis in Ger- 
 many; a score or two of lay professors, led by a 
 handful whose names are already notorious, and a 
 hundred or so of laymen who, before the Council met, 
 began to protest against its acts, convoke a congress, 
 which ends in a gathering of some twenty persons. 
 These, with the alleged opposition of one Bishop, whose 
 name out of respect I do not write, as the allegation 
 has never yet been confirmed by his own word or 
 act, these are hitherto the adverse consequences of 
 the Definition. 
 
 On the other hand, the Bishops who, because they 
 opposed the Definition as inopportune, were calumni- 
 ously paraded as opposed to the doctrine of Infalli- 
 bility, at once began to publish their submission to the 
 acts of the Council. The greater part of the French 
 Bishops who were once in opposition, have explicitly 
 declared their adhesion. The German Bishops, meeting 
 again at Fulda, issued a Pastoral Letter, so valuable in 
 itself, that I have reprinted it in the Appendix.* It 
 
154 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 was signed by seventeen, including all the chief Bishops 
 of Germany. The others, if silent, cannot be doubted. 
 The leading Bishops of Austria and Hungary, who 
 may be taken as representing the Episcopates of 
 these countries, have in like manner declared them- 
 selves. The Clergy and the faithful of these king- 
 doms, with the rarest exceptions of an individual here 
 and there, are, as they have always been, of one mind 
 in accepting the definition with joy. Ireland has 
 spoken for itself, not only in many dioceses, and by its 
 Bishops, but by the Triduum, or Thanksgiving of 
 three days, held in Dublin with great solemnity and 
 with a concourse, as I am informed by direct corre- 
 spondence, such as was never seen before. Of Eng- 
 land I need say little. The Clergy of this diocese 
 have twice spoken for themselves ; and the Clergy of 
 England and Scotland have given unequivocal witness 
 to their faith. As we hear so much and so often of 
 those among us who are called ' the old Catholics,' 
 that is, the sons of our martyrs and confessors; and 
 as their name is so lightly and officiously taken in 
 vain by those who desire to find or to make divisions 
 among us, you will not need, but will nevertheless be 
 glad, to know, that both by word and by letter I have 
 received from the chief and foremost among them, 
 express assurance that what the Council has defined 
 they have always believed. It is but their old faith in 
 an explicit formula. Among the disappointments to 
 which our adversaries, I regret so to call them, but 
 truth must be spoken, have doomed themselves, none is 
 greater than this. They have laboured to believe and 
 to make others believe that the Catholic Church is 
 
EESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 155 
 
 internally divided ; that the Council has revealed this 
 division; and that it is nowhere more patent than in 
 England. It is, I know, useless to contradict this 
 illusion. It is not founded in reason, and cannot by 
 reason be corrected. Prejudice and passion are deaf 
 and blind. Time and facts will dispel illusions, and 
 expose falsehoods. And to this slow but inexorable 
 cure we must leave them. It is no evidence of 
 division among us, if here and there a few indivi- 
 duals should fall away. I said before, the Council 
 win be in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum. It 
 is a time of spiritual danger to many; especially to 
 those who live perpetually among adversaries, hearing 
 diatribes all day long against the Church, the Coun- 
 cil, and the Holy Father, reading anti-Catholic ac- 
 counts and comments upon Catholic doctrines, and 
 upon the words and acts of Catholic Bishops, and 
 always breathing, till they are unconscious of it, an 
 anti- Catholic atmosphere. 
 
 St. Paul has foretold that ' In the last days shall 
 come dangerous times,' * and ' in the last times some 
 shall depart from the faith.' f Those days seem 
 now to be upon us ; and individuals perhaps may 
 fall. But the fall of leaves and sprays and boughs 
 does not divide the Tree. You will know how to 
 deal with them in charitj^, patience, and firmness, 
 before you act on the Apostolic precept, ' A man 
 that is a heretic, after the first and second ad- 
 monition, avoid.' X You will use all the patience 
 of charity, but you will use also, if need be so, its 
 
 * 2 Tim. iii. 1. +1 Tim. iv. 1. 
 
 % Tit. iii. 10. 
 
156 THE VATICAN COUNCIL, 
 
 just severity. In these days, laxity is mistaken for 
 charity, and indifference to truth for love of souls. 
 This is not the spirit of the Apostle, who in the 
 excess of charity declared that he could desire ' to be 
 anathema from Christ '.for his brethren according to 
 the flesh, and yet for the love of soub could say, 
 ' I would they were even cut off, who trouble you; ' * 
 because the purity of the faith is vital to the sal- 
 vation of souls, and the salvation of the flock must be 
 preferred to the salvation of a few. 
 
 I will touch but one other topic, and then make an 
 end. The same prophets who foretold disastrous con- 
 sequences from the definition, are now foretelling the 
 downfall of the Temporal Power. Day by day, we 
 hear and read contemptuous censures of the obstinacy 
 of Pius the Ninth, who has ruined himself by his Non 
 possumus, and sealed his downfall by the definition 
 of his own infallibility. I do not hesitate to say, that 
 if what is now happening had been caused by the 
 definition, which is not the fact, yet any external 
 trials would be better than an internal conflict arising 
 from a contradiction of revealed truth. Gold may be 
 bought too dear : but truth cannot. 
 
 Perhaps we ought not to wonder that the Protestant 
 and anti-Catholic world should persist in declaring 
 that Kome, by the definition of the Infallibility, has 
 altered its relations to the world; or, as I have lately 
 read, ' disgusted all the civil governments of Europe.' 
 They do not know, or are willingly ignorant, that the 
 doctrine of the Infallibility was as much the doctrine 
 of the Church before as after the definition. The 
 
 * Gal. V. 12. 
 
IIESULT or THE DEFINITION. 157 
 
 definition only declares it to be revealed by God. The 
 relations of Rome to the Civil Powers are therefore 
 precisely what they were before. If the Civil Powers 
 are disgusted, it is only because the CEcumenical 
 Council, declined to swerve from its duty in com- 
 pliance to their dictation ; or because they can no 
 longer affect to disbelieve that the Infallibility of the 
 Roman Pontiff is .the true and traditional doctrine of 
 the Catholic Church. We are called superstitious, 
 because we do not believe in the downfall of the 
 Temporal Power ; and obstinate, because we will not 
 recognise the right of Italy to invade the Patrimony 
 of the Church. Our superstition consists in this. 
 In the history of the Church the Temporal Power 
 has been suppressed, as the phrase is, over and over 
 again. The first Napoleon suppressed it twice. The 
 Triumvirate suppressed it in 1848. There is nothing 
 new under the sun. The thing that has been, is 
 the thing that shall be. We do not believe in the 
 perpetuity of anything but the Church; nor in the 
 finality of anything but justice. Sacrilege carries the 
 seeds of its own dissolution. A robbery so unjust 
 cannot endure. When or how it shall be chastised we 
 know not : but the day of reckoning is not less sure for 
 that. Of one thing there can be no doubt ; the nations 
 which have conspired to dethrone the Vicar of Christ 
 will, for that sin, be scourged. They will, moreover, 
 scourge one another and themselves. The people 
 that has the chief share in the sin, will have the 
 heaviest share in the punishment. We are therefore 
 in no way moved. If it be God's will that His 
 Church should suffer persecution, it will be thereby 
 
158 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 purified; but the persecutors will fall one by one. 
 Eome has seen the map of Europe made over and 
 over again ; but Kome remains changeless. It will 
 see out the present dynasties of conquered and con- 
 queror : sufi"ering, it may be, but indefectible. 
 
 I have already said, that the definition was made 
 on the eighteenth of July, and war on the nineteenth. 
 Since that date, a crowd of events have hurried to their 
 fulfilment. The French Empire has passed away. 
 Eome is occupied by the armies of Italy. The. peace 
 of Europe is broken : never again, it may be, to be 
 restored, till the scourges of war have gone their 
 circuit among the nations. A period of storm has 
 set in, and the rising waters of a flood may be seen 
 approaching. If a time of trial for the Church is at 
 hand, a time of ruin and desolation to all countries 
 in Europe will come with it. The Church may suffer, 
 but cannot die; the dynasties and civil societies of 
 Europe may not only suffer but be swept away. 
 The Head of the Church, be he where he may, in 
 Eome or in exile, free or in bondage, will be all that 
 the Council of the Vatican has defined, supreme in 
 jurisdiction, infallible in faith. Go where he may, 
 the faithful throughout the world will see in him the 
 likeness of His Divine Master, both in authority and 
 in doctrine. The Council has thus made provision 
 for the Church in its time of trial, when, it may be, 
 not only CEcumenical Councils cannot be held, but 
 even the ordinary administration of ecclesiastical 
 government and consultation may be hardly pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Peter's bark is ready for the storm. AU that is 
 
RESULT OF THE PEFINITION. 159 
 
 needful is already on board. Past ages were wild 
 and perilous, but the future bids fair to exceed them 
 in violence, as a hurricane exceeds an ordinary storm. 
 The times of the Council of Trent were tempestuous : 
 but for these three hundred years the licence and the 
 violence of free thought, free speech, and a free press 
 which spares nothing human or divine, have been 
 accumulating in volume and intensity. AU this 
 burst upon the Council of the Vatican. And in the 
 midst of this, the Yicar of Jesus Christ, abandoned 
 by all powers of the once Christian world, stands 
 alone, weak but invincible, the supreme judge and 
 infallible teacher of men. The Church has therefore 
 its provision for faith and truth, unity and order. 
 The floods may come, the rain descend, and the 
 winds blow and beat upon it, but it cannot fall, 
 because it is founded upon Peter. But what security 
 has the Christian world? AVithout helm, chart, or 
 light, it has launched itself into the falls of revolu- 
 tion. There is not a monarchy that is not threatened. 
 In Spain and France, monarchy is already over- 
 thrown. The hated Syllabus will have its justifica- 
 tion. The Syllabus which condemned Atheism and 
 revolution would have saved society. But men would 
 not. They are dissolving the temporal power of the 
 Vicar of Christ. And why do they dissolve it ? Be- 
 cause governments are no longer Christian. The 
 temporal power had no sphere, and therefore no 
 manifestation, before the world was Christian. What 
 matter will it have for its temporal power, when 
 the world has ceased to be Christian ? For what is 
 the temporal power, but the condition of peaceful 
 
160 THE VATICAN COUNCII-. 
 
 independence and supreme direction over all Chris- 
 tians, and all Christian societies, inherent in the 
 office of Vicar of Christ, and head of the Christian 
 Church? When the Civil powers became Christian, 
 faith and obedience restrained them from casting 
 so much as a shadow of human sovereignty Over 
 the Yicar of the Son of God. They who attempt it 
 now will do it at their peril. 
 
 The Church of God cannot be bound, and its 
 liberty is in its head. The liberty of conscience and 
 of faith, since the Church entered into peace, have 
 been secured in his independence. 
 
 For a thousand years his independence, which is 
 sovereignty, has been secured by the providence of 
 God in the temporal power over Rome : the narrow 
 sphere of his exemption from all civil subjection. But 
 men are nowadays wiser than God, and would unmake 
 and mend His works. They are therefore dissolving 
 the temporal power as He has fashioned it ; and in so 
 doing, they are striking out the keystone of the arch 
 which hangs over their own heads. This done, the 
 natural society of the world will still subsist, but 
 the Christian world wUl be no more. One thing 
 is certain ; let all the Civil powers of this world in 
 turn, or all together, claim the Vicar of Jesus Christ 
 as their subject, a subject he will never be. The 
 Non possumus is not only immutable, but invincible. 
 The infallible head of an infallible Church cannot 
 depend on the sovereignty of man. The Council of 
 the Vatican has brought out this truth with the 
 evidence of light. The world may despise and fight 
 against it, but the Church of God wiU believe and 
 act upon this law of divine faith. 
 
RESULT OF THE DEFINITION. 161 
 
 The peoples of the world will hear him gladly ; but 
 the rulers see in him a superior, and will not brook 
 it. They cannot subdue him, and they will not be 
 subject to his voice. They are therefore in perpetual 
 conflict with him. But who ever fought against 
 him, and has prospered? Kings have carried him 
 captive, and princes have betrayed him ; but, one by 
 one, they have passed away, and he still abides. 
 Their end has been so tragically explicit that all 
 men may read its meaning. And yet kings and 
 princes will not learn, nor be wise. They rush 
 against the rock, and perish. The world sees their 
 ruin, but will not see the reason. The faithful read in 
 the ruin of all who lay hands on the Vicar of Christ 
 the warning of the Psalmist, ' Nolite tangere Christos 
 meos ; ' and of our Lord Himself, ' Whosoever shall 
 fall on this stone, shall be broken, but on whomsoever 
 it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' * 
 
 I remain, reverend and dear Brethren, 
 
 Your affectionate Servant in Christ, 
 
 »i«HENEY Edward, 
 
 Archbishop of Westminstor. 
 Feast of S. Edward the Confessor. 
 
 * St. Matth. xxi. 44. 
 
 M 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 FOSTULATUM OF THE BISHOFS FOR THE 
 DEFINITION OF THE INFALLIBILITY. 
 
 SAORO CONCILIO OECUMENICO VATIOANO. 
 
 A Sacra Oecumeiiica Synodo Vaticana infrascripti Patres Im- 
 millime instanterque flagitant, ut apertis, omnemque dubitandi 
 locuin excludentibus verbis sancire velit supremam, ideoque 
 ab errore immunem esse Romani Pontificis auctoritatem, quum 
 in rebus fidei et morum ea statuit ac praecipit, quae ab omnibus 
 christifidelibus credenda et tenenda, quaeve reuoienda et dam- 
 nanda sint. 
 
 RaTIONES OB QUAS HAEC PeOPOSITIO OpPOETUNA ET NeCESSAEIA 
 CENSBTUE. 
 
 Romani Pontificis, beati Petri Apostoli successoris, in univer- 
 sam Chiisti Bcclesiam iurisdictionis, adeoque etiam supremi 
 magisterii primatus ia sacris Scripturis aperte docetur. 
 
 Universalis et oonstans Ecolesiae traditio tum factis turn, sanc- 
 torum Patrum effatis, turn, plurimorum Conciliorum, etiam oecu- 
 menicorum, et agendi et loquendi ratione docet, Romani Pontificis 
 indicia de fidei morumque doctrina irreformabilia esse. 
 
 Consentientibus Grraecis et Latinis, in Concilio II Lugdunensi 
 admissa professio fidei est, in qua declaratur : ' Subortas de fide 
 controversias debere Romani Pontificis iudicio definiri.' In 
 Plorentina itidem oecumenica Synodo definitum est : ' Romanum 
 Pontificem esse verum Cbristi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae 
 caput, et omnium oliristianorum patrem et doctorem ; et ipsi in 
 beato Petro pascendi, regendi ao gubernandi universalem Eccle- 
 
 M 2 
 
164 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 siam a Domino nostro lesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam 
 esse.' Ipsa quoque sana ratio docet, neminem stare posse in fidei 
 commiraione cum Ecclesia catholica, qui eius capiti non consentlat, 
 quum. ne cogitatione quidem Ecclesiam a suo capite separare 
 liceat. 
 
 Attamen fuemnt atque adlnicdum sunt, qui, cathoUcorum 
 nomine gloriantes, eoque etiam ad infirmorum in fide pemiciem 
 abutentes, docere praesumant, earn sufficere submissionem erga 
 Romani Pontificis auctoritatem, qua eius de fide moribusque 
 decreta obseqnioso, ut aiunt, silentio, sine intemo mentis assensu, 
 vel provisorie tantum, usquedum de Ecclesiae assensu vel dissensu 
 constiterit, suscipiantur. 
 
 Hacce porro perversa doctrina Romani Pontificis auctoritatem 
 subverti, fidei unitatem dissipari, erroribus campum amplissimum 
 aperiri, tempusque late serpendi tribui, nemo non videt. 
 
 Quare Episcopi, catbolicae veritatis custodes et ^indices, his 
 potissimum temporibus connisi sunt, ut supremam ApostoUcae 
 Sedis docendi auctoritatem synodalibus praesertim decretis et 
 communibus testimoniis tuerentur.* 
 
 * 1. Concilium provineiale Coloniense, anno 1860 celebratum, cui, praeter 
 eminentissimum Cardinalem et Arehiepiscopum Coloniensem, loannem de 
 Geissel, quinque subscripserunt Episcopi, diserte docet: 'Ipse (Romanus 
 Pontifex) est omnium Christianorum pater et doctor, cuius in fidei quaes- 
 tionihus per se irreformabile est indicium^ 
 
 2. Episcopi in Concilio provinoiali UUraiectensi anno 1865 congregati aper- 
 tisBime edieunt : ' (Romani Pontificis) iudicium in iis, quae ad fidem moresque 
 spectant, infdllibile esse, indubitanter retinemus.' 
 
 3. Concilium provineiale Colocense, anno 1860 celebratum, haec statuit: 
 ' Quemadmodum Petrus erat . . . doctrinae fidei magister irrefragabilis, pro 
 quo ipse Dominus rogavit, ut non defieeret fides eius . . . ; pari modo legitimi 
 eius in cathedrae Romanae culmine successores . . . depositum fidei summo 
 et irrefragabili oraculo custodiunt . . . TJnde propositiones deri gallieani 
 anno 1682 editas, quas iam piae memoriae Georgius Archiepiscopus Strigo- 
 niensis una cum ceteris Hungariae Praesulibus eodem adhuc anno publicc 
 proscripsit, itidem reiicimus, proscribimus, atque cunctis Provinciae huius 
 fidelibus interdicimus, ne eas legere vel tenere, multo minus docere auderent.' 
 
 4. Concilium plenarium Bcdtimorense, anno 1866 coactum, in decretis, 
 quibus 44 Archiepiseopi et Episcopi subseripserunt, inter alia haec docet: 
 ' Viva et infallibilis auctoritas in ea tantum viget Ecclesia, quae a Christo 
 Domino supra Petrum, totius Ecclesiae caput, principem et pastorem, cuius 
 fidem nunquam defecturara promisit, aedificata, suos legitimos semper habet 
 Pontifices, sine intermissione ab ipso Petro ducentes originem, in eius cathedra 
 eoUocatos, et eiusdem etiam doctrinae, dignitatis, honoris et potestatis haeredes 
 et vindiees. Et quoniam ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, ae Petrus per Eomanum 
 Pontificem loquitur et semper in suis suecessoribus vivit et iudicium exercefc, 
 ac praestat quaerentibus fidei veritatem ; idcirco divina eloguia eo plane sensti 
 
APPENDIX. 165 
 
 Quo evidentius vero catholioa^ Veritas praedicabatur, eo vehe- 
 mentius, tarn libellis quam ephemeridibus, nuperrime impugnata 
 est, Tit catholicus populus contra sanam doctrinam commoveretur, 
 ipsaque Vatioana Synodus ab ea proclamanda absterreretur. 
 
 Quare, si antea de opportunitate istius doctrinae in hoc Oecu- 
 menico Concilio pronuntiandae a pluribus dnbitari adhuc potuit, 
 nunc earn definire necessarium prorsus videtur. Catbolica enim 
 doctrina iisderti plane argumentis denuo impetitur, quibus olim 
 homines, proprio iudicio condemnati, adyersus earn utebantur ; 
 quibus, si urgeantur, ipse Romani Pontificis primatus, Ecclesiae- 
 que infallibilitas pessumdatur ; at quibus saepe deterrima convicia 
 contra Apostolicam Sedem admiscentur. Immo acerbissimi 
 catholicae doctrinae impugnatores, licet catholicos se dicant, 
 blaterare non erubescunt, Florentinam Synodum, supremam 
 Romani Pontificis auctoritatem luculentissime profitentem, oecu- 
 menicam non fuisse. 
 
 Si igitur Conciliuni Vaticanum, adeo provocatum, taceret et 
 catholicae doctrinae testimonium dare negligeret, tunc catholicus 
 
 sunt accipienda, quae tenuit ac tenet haec Bomana beatissimi Petri cathedra, 
 quae omnium Ecclesiarum mater et magistra, fidem a Christo Domino t.raditam 
 iutegram inviolatamque semper servavit, eamqtie fideles edocuit, omnibus 
 ostendens scdutis semitam et incorruptae veritatis doctrinam. 
 
 5. ConeiKum primum provinciale Westmonasteriense, anno 1852 habitum, 
 profitetur : ' Cum Dominus noster adhortetur dicens : Attendite ad petram, 
 unde excisi estis ; attendite ad Abraham ^ patrem vestrum : aequum est, nos, 
 qui immediate ab Apostolica Sede fidem, sacerdotium, veramque religionem 
 accepimus, eidem plus ceteris amoris et observantiae vinculis adstringi. Fmn- 
 damentum igitur verae et orthodoxae fidei ponimus, quod Dominus noster Jesus 
 Christus poiiere voluit inconcussum, scilicet Petri cathedram, totius orbis 
 magistram et matrem, S. Bomanam Eoclesiam. Quidquid ab ipsa semel dejmitum 
 est, eo ipso ratum et certum tenemus; ipsius traditiones, ritus, pios usus et 
 omnes apostolicas constitutiones, disciplinam respioientes, toto corde amplee- 
 timur et veneramur. Summo deuique Pontifici obedientiam et reverentiam, ut 
 Christi Vicario, ex animo profitemur, eique arctissime in catholica com- 
 munione adhaeremus.' 
 
 6. Quingenti prope Episcopi, ex toto terrarum orbe ad agenda solemnia 
 saecularia Martyrii Sanctorum Petri et Pauli anno 1867 in hae alma Urbe 
 congregati, minime dubitarunt, Supremam Pontiflcem Pium IX bisce alloqui 
 verbis : ' Petrum per os Pii locutum fuisse credentes, quae ad custodjendum 
 depositum a Te dicta, confirmata, prolata sunt, nos quoque dioimus, confir- 
 mamus, annuneiamus, unoque ore atqiie animo reiiolmus omnia, quae divinae 
 fidei, saluti animarum, ipsi sociefatis humanae bono adversa, Tu ipse repro- 
 banda ac reiicienda iudicasti. Firmum euim menti nostrae est, alteque de. 
 fixum, quod Patres Florentini in decreto unionis definierunt : Eomauum 
 Pontificem Christi Vicarium, totius Eodesiae "aput pt omnium Christianoruni 
 Patrem et Doctorem exsistere.' 
 
166 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 populus de vera doctrina reapse dubitare inciperet, neoterici 
 autem gloriantes assererent, Ooncilium ob argumenta ab ipsis 
 allata siluisse. Quiaimmo silentio boc semper abuterentur, ut 
 Apostolicae Sedis iudiciis et decretis circa fidem et mores palam 
 obedientiam. negarent, sub praetextu. quod Romanus Pontifex in 
 eiusmodi iudiciis falU potuerit. 
 
 Publicum itaque rei christianae bonum postulare ■videtur, ut 
 Sacrosanctum Concilium Vaticanum, Plorentinum decretum de 
 Romano Pontifice denuo profitens et uberius explicans, apertis, 
 omnemque dubitandi locum praecludentibus verbis sancire velit 
 supremam, ideoque ab errore immunem esse eiusdem Romani 
 Pontificis auctoritatem, quum in rebus fidei et morum ea statoit 
 ac praecipit, quae ab omnibus christifidelibus credenda et tenenda, 
 quaeve reiicienda et damnanda sint. 
 
 Non desunt quidem qui existiment, a catbolica hac veritate 
 sancienda abstinendum esse, ne scbismatici atque haeretici longius 
 ab Ecclesia arceantur. Sed in primis catholicus populus ius 
 babet, ut ab Oecumenica Synodo doceatur, quid in re tarn gravi, 
 et tam improbe nuper impugnata, credendum sit, ne simplices et 
 incautos multorum. animos perniciosus error tandem corrumpat. 
 Idcirco etiam Lugdunenses et Tridentini Patres rectam doctrinam 
 stabiliendam esse cen'suerunt, etsi scbismatici et baeretici offen- 
 derentur. Qui si sincera mente veritatem quaerant, non abster- 
 rebuntur sed allicientur, dum ipsis ostenditur, quo potissimum 
 fundamento catholicae Ecclesiae unitas et firmitas nitatur. Si 
 qui autem, vera doctrina ab Oecumenico Ooncilio definita, ab 
 Ecclesia deficerent, bi numero pauci et iamdudum in fide naufragi 
 sunt, praetextum solummodo quaerentes, quo externa etiam 
 actione ab Ecclesia se eximant, quam interno sensu iam deseruisse 
 palam ostendunt. Hi sunt, qui catbolicum populum continue 
 turbare non abborruerunt, et a quorum iasidiis Vaticana Synodus 
 fideles Ecclesiae filios tueri debebit. Catbolicus enimvero populus, 
 semper .edoctusetassuetuSj.Apostolicis Romani Pontificis decretis 
 plenissimum m".entis et oris obsequium exbibere, Vaticani Concilii 
 sententiam de eiusdem suprema et ab errore immuni auctoritate 
 laeto fidelique animo excipiet. 
 
APPENDIX. 167 
 
 TRAlfSLATION OF THE POSTULATUM FOR 
 THE DEFINITION. 
 
 TO THE HOLY (ECUMENICAL VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 The undersigned Fathers humbly and earnestly beg the holy 
 CEcumenical Council of the Vatican to define clearly, and itt 
 words that cannot be mistaken, that the authority of the Roman 
 Pontiff is saprenje, and, therefore, exempt from, error, when in 
 matters of faith and morals he declares and defines what is to be 
 believed and held, and what to be rejected and condemned, by all 
 the faithful. 
 
 Reasons foe which this Definition is thought Opportune 
 
 AND NeCESSAET. 
 
 The Sacred Scriptures plainly teach the Primacy of jurisdic- 
 tion of the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. Peter, over the 
 whole Church of Christ, and, therefore, also his Primacy of su- 
 preme teaching authority. 
 
 The universal and constant tradition of the Church, as seen 
 both in facts and in the teaching of the Fathers, as well as in 
 the manner of acting and speaking adopted by many Councils, 
 some of which were CEcumenical, teaches us that the judgments 
 of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals are irre- 
 formable. 
 
 In the Second Council of Lyons, with the consent of both 
 Greeks and Latins, a profession of faith was agreed upon, which 
 declares : ' Wben controversies in matters of faith arise, they 
 must be settled by the decision of the Roman Pontifif.' Moreover, 
 in the CEcumenical Synod of Florence, it was defined that ' the 
 Roman Pontiff is Christ's true Vicar, the Head of the whole 
 Church, and Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that to 
 him, in blessed Peter, was given by Jesus Christ the plenitude of 
 power to rule and govern the universal Church.' Sound reason, 
 too, teaches us that no one can remain in communion of faith 
 with the Catholic Church who is not of one mind with its head, 
 since the Church cannot be separated from its head even in 
 thought. 
 
 Yet some have been found, and are even now to be foand, 
 who, boasting of the name of Catholic, and using that name to 
 the ruin of those weak in faith, are bold enough to teach, that 
 sufficient submission is yielded to the authority of the Roman 
 
168 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Pontiff, if we receive tis decrees in matters of faith and morals 
 ■with an obsequious silence, as it is termed, without yielding in- 
 ternal assent, or, at most, with a provisional assent, until the 
 approval or disapproval of the Church has been made known. 
 Anyone can see that by this perverse doctrine the authority of 
 the Roman Pontiff is overturned, all unity of faith dissolved, a 
 wide field opened to errors, and leisure afforded for spreading 
 them far and wide. 
 
 Wherefore the Bishops, the guardians and protectors of Ca- 
 tholic trath, have endeavoured, especially now-a-days, to defend 
 in their Synodal decrees, and by their united testimony, the 
 supreme authority of the Apostolic See.* 
 
 But the more clearly Catholic truth has been declared, the 
 more vehemently has it been attacked both in books and in 
 newspapers, for the purpose of exciting Catholics against sound 
 doctrine, and preventing the Council of the Vatican from defin- 
 ing it. 
 
 Though, then, in times past many might have doubted the 
 opportuneness of declaring this doctrine in the present (Ecu- 
 menical Council, it would seem now to be absolutely necessary 
 to define it. For Catholic doctrine is now once more assailed 
 by those same arguments which men, condemned by their own 
 conscience, used against it in old times ; arguments which, if 
 carried to their ultimate consequences, would bring to the ground 
 the very Primacy of the Roman Pontiff and the infallibility of 
 the Church itself : and to which, also, is frequently added, the 
 most violent abuse of the Apostolic See. Nay, more ; the most 
 bitter assailants of Catholic doctrine, though calling themselves 
 Catholics, are not ashamed to assert that the Synod of Plorence, 
 which so clearly declares the supreme authority of the Roman 
 Pontiff, was not QEcumenical. 
 
 If then the Council of the Vatican, being thus challenged, were 
 to be silent, and omit to give testimony to the Catholic doctrine on 
 this point, then Catholics would, in fact, begin to doubt the true 
 doctrine, and the novelty-mongers would triumphantly assert 
 that the Council had been silenced by the arguments brought 
 forward by them. They would, moreover, abuse this silence on 
 every occasion, and openly deny the obedience due to the judg- 
 ments and decrees of the Apostolic See in matters of faith and 
 morals, under pretext that the judgment of the Roman Pontiff 
 is fallible on such points. 
 
 * Many specimens of this testimony are collected in the following Appendix 
 to the Postiilatum. 
 
AlPENDIX. 169 
 
 Wherefore tte public good of Christianity seems to require, 
 that the holy Council of the Vatican, professing once again, and 
 explaining more fully, the Florentine decree, should define clearly 
 and in words that can admit of no doubt, that the authority of 
 the Roman Pontiff is supreme, and, therefore, exempt from error, [ 
 when in matters of faith and niprals he (igcrees and ordains what 
 ^isj to be belie yedand held by all the faithful, of Chrigt, and what 
 to be rejected and condemned by them. 
 
 There are, indeed, some who think that this Catholic truth 
 should not be defined, lest schismatics and heretics should be 
 repelled yet further from the Church. But, above all other con- 
 siderations, Catholics have a right to be taught by the (Ecu- 
 menical Council what they are to believe in so weighty a matter, 
 and one which has been of late so iniquitously attacked ; lest 
 this pernicious error should in the end infect simple minds, and 
 the masses of people unawares. Hence it was that the Fathers 
 of Lyons and of Trent deemed themselves bound to establish 
 the doctrine of the truth, notwithstanding the offence that might 
 be taken by schismatics and heretics. For if these seek the 
 truth in sincerity, they will not be repelled, but, on the contrary, 
 drawn towards us, when they see on what foundations the 
 unity and strength of the Catholic Church chiefly repose. But 
 should any leave the Church in consequence of the true doctrine 
 being defined by the CBcumenical Council, these will be few in 
 number, and such as have already suffered shipwreck in the 
 faith ; such as are only seeking a pretext to abandon that Church 
 by an overt act, which they plainly show they have deserted 
 already in heart. These are they who have never shrunk from 
 disturbing our Catholic people ; and from the snares of such 
 men the CouncU of the Vatican ought to protect the faithful 
 children of the Church. For all true Catholics, taught and 
 accustomed to render the fullest obedience both of thought and 
 word to the Apostohc decrees of the Roman Pontiff, will receive 
 with joyful and devoted hearts the definition of the Council of 
 the Vatican concerning his supreme and infallible authority. 
 
 ■APPENDIX. 
 
 Dbcisioits op Provincial Synods ebcentlt held, showing the 
 Common Opinion of Bishops conceening the Supreme and 
 Infallible authoeitt of the Romajj Pontiff in matters of 
 Faith and Morals. 
 1. The Provincial Council held at Cologne in 1860, to which, 
 
 in addition to his Eminence Cardinal Geissel, Archbishop of 
 
170 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Cologne, five Bishops subscribed, expressly declares : ' He (the 
 Roman Pontiff) is the father and teacher of all Christians, whose 
 judgment in questions of faith is "per se " v/nalterahle.' 
 
 2. The Bishops' assembled in the Provincial Council, held at 
 Utrecht in 1865, most openly assert : ' We unhesitatingly hold 
 that the judgment of the Roman Pontiff in matters which refer 
 to faith and morals is infallible.' 
 
 3. The Provincial Council of Prague * in 1860, to which his 
 Eminence Cardinal Archbishop Prederic de Schwarzenberg and 
 four other Bishops subscribed, under the heading, 'On the 
 Primacy of the Roman Pontiff,' decreed as follows : ' We re- 
 ject, moreover, the error of those who pretend that the Church 
 can exist anywhere without being joined in bonds of union with 
 the Church of Rome, in which the tradition which has been 
 handed down by the Apostles, has been preserved by those who 
 are in every part.' (S. Irenaaus Adv. Hcer. 1. 3, c. 3, n. 2.) 
 
 ' We know that no one who is not joined to the Head, can be 
 considered as a member of the Body of the Church which Christ 
 founded on Peter and established on his authority. Let all then 
 prefer to confess with us and with the multitude of orthodox 
 believers spread over the whole world, the Headship of the 
 Roman Church and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff; let 
 them, as is fitting, with us, reverence and honour with dutiful 
 affection our Most Holy Pather Pius IX., by God's Providence 
 Pope, the lawful Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the 
 Vicar of Christ on earth, the Chief Teacher of Faith, and Pilot 
 of the Ship of Christ, to whom the most exact ohedience and in- 
 ternal assent is due from all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ. 
 We declare and teach, That this authority of the Roman Pontiff 
 comes from Christ our Lord, and that consequently it is dependent 
 upon no power or favour of men, and renaains unimpaired in all 
 times, even in the most bitter persecutions which the Church of 
 Rome has suffered, as was the case during the imprisonment and 
 martyrdom of blessed Peter.' 
 
 4. The Provincial Council of Kalocza, held in 1860, declared : 
 ' That as Peter was . . . the irrefutable teacher of the doctrines 
 of faith, for whom the Lord Himself prayed that his faith might 
 not fail ; so his legitimate successors seated aloft on the Chair 
 of Rome . . . preserve the deposit of faith with supreme and 
 irrefutable powers of declaring the truth. . . . Wherefore we 
 also reject, proscribe, and forbid all the faithful of this Province, 
 
 * This Council was not included in the original draught from -which the 
 Latin is taken. 
 
APPENDIX. 171 
 
 to read or maintain, and rtnicli more to teach, tlie propositions 
 published by the Gallioan Clergy in 1682, wliich have already 
 been censured this same year by the Archbishop of Gran, of 
 pious memory, and by the other Bishops of Hungary.' 
 
 5. The Plenary Council of Baltimore, which met in 1866 and 
 to which 44 Archbishops and Bishops subscribed, says : ' The 
 living and infallible authority flourishes in that Church alone 
 which was built by. Christ upon Peter, who is the Head, Leader, 
 and Pastor of the whole Church, whose faith Christ promised 
 should never fail ; which ever had legitimate Pontiffs, dating 
 their origin in unbroken line from Peter himself, being seated 
 in his Chair, and being the inheritors and defenders of the like 
 doctrine, dignity, office, and power. And because, where Peter 
 is, there also is the Church, and because Peter speaks in the 
 person of the Roman Pontiff, ever lives in his successors, passes 
 judgment and makes known the truths of faith to those who 
 seek them ; therefore are the Divine declarations to he received in 
 that sense i/n which they have been and are held iy this Roman See 
 of llessed Peter, that mother and teacher of all Churches, which 
 has ever preserved whole and entire the teaching delivered by 
 Christ, and which has taught it to the faithful, showing to all men 
 the paths of salvation and the doctrine of everlasting truth.' 
 
 6. The. first Provincial Council of Westminster, held in 1852, 
 states : ' When our Blessed Lord exhorts us, saying. Look to the 
 rock whence you are hewn ; look to Abraham your father, it is 
 fitting that we who have received our faith, our priesthood, and 
 the true religion, directly from the Apostolic See, should more 
 than others be attached to it by the bonds of love and fidelity. 
 Therefore do we maintain that foundation of truth and mihodoxy 
 which Jesus Christ willed should he maintained unshaken; namely, 
 the See of Peter, the teacher and mother of the whole world, the 
 Holy Roman Ohuroh. Whatever is once defined hy it, for that very 
 reason alone we consider to he fixed and certain; when we look at 
 its traditions, rites, pious customs, discipline, and all its Apostolic 
 Constitutions, we follow and cherish them with all the affection 
 of our hearts. In fine, we of set purpose publicly declare our 
 obedience and respect for the Pope as Christ's Vicar, and we 
 remain united to him in the closest bonds of Catholic unity.' 
 
 7. Nearly five hundred of the Bishops assembled in Eome to 
 celebrate the Centenary of the Martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, 
 in the year 1867, had no hesitation in addressing Pius IX. in the 
 following terms : ' Believing that Peter has spoken by the month 
 
 . of Pius, whatever has been said, confirmed, and decreed by Tou 
 
172 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 to preserve the deposit of faith, we also repeat, confirm, and 
 profess, and witli one mind and heart we reject all that Ton have 
 judged it necessary to reprove and condemn as contrary to Divine 
 faith, to the salvation of souls, and to the good of society. For 
 what the Fathers of Florence defined in their Decree of Union, 
 is firmly and deeply impressed in our minds ; that the Roman 
 PontifT is the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, 
 the Father and Teacher of all Christians.' 
 
APPENDIX. 173 
 
 II. 
 
 LETTER OF H. E. CARDINAL ANTONELLl TO 
 THE NUNCIO AT PARIS. 
 
 Eome, March 19, 1870. 
 
 Mt Loed, — Tie Marquis de BanneTille, ambassador of Lis 
 Majesty, read me, a few days ago, a despatch forwarded to him 
 under date Februaiy 20 last, from Coimt Daru, Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs, relative to the affairs of the Council. In this communica- 
 tion, of which the ambassador was kind enough to leave me a copy, 
 the aforesaid minister, referring to the resolution come to by the 
 French Government not to take part in the deliberations of the 
 General Council, desiring at the same time its liberty to be. 
 guaranteed fully and absolutely, states that such resolution was 
 based on the supposition that that venerable assembly would 
 occupy itself solely about the sacred interests of the Faith, and 
 would abstain from touching questions of a purely political order. 
 But the publication (he says) by the ' Augsburg Gazette ' of the 
 canons appertaining to the draft of constitution on the Church 
 and on the Roman Pontiff, showing that there is question of 
 deciding whether the power of the Church and of her Head ex- 
 tends to the whole aggregate of pohtical rights ; the Government, 
 keeping firmly to the resolution of leaving, upon this point also, 
 entire liberty to the deliberations of the august assembly, intends 
 to exercise the right given it by the Concordat of making known 
 to the Council its opinion on questions of such nature. 
 
 Passing: to the examination of the said canons, the minister 
 sums up their contents (on which he wishes to comment) in the 
 two following propositions : — First, ' the Infallibility of the 
 Church extends not only to the Deposit of Faith, but to all that 
 is necessary for the preservation of such Deposit ' ; and secondly, 
 ' the Church is a society divine and perfect ; its power is exer- 
 cised at once m foro interna et externa ; is absolute in the legisla- 
 tive, judicial, and coercive order, and is to be exercised by her 
 with fuU liberty and independence from any civil power what- 
 ever.' Hence, as corollaries of these two propositions, he deduces 
 
174 - THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the extension of infallibility to all that is thought necessary for 
 the defence of revealed truths, and consequently to facts, whether 
 historical, philosophical, or scientific, external to revelation : as 
 also the absolute subordination to the supreme authority of the 
 Church of the constituent principles of civil society ; of the 
 rights and duties of Government ; of the political rights and 
 duties of citizens, whether electoral or municipal ; of all that 
 . relates to the judicial and legislative order, as well in respect of 
 persons as of things ; of the rules of public administration ; of 
 the rights and duties of corporations, and, in general, of all the 
 rights of the State, not excludiag the rights of conquest, peace, 
 and war. 
 
 Next the minister passes on to note the profound impression 
 which the simple enunciation of such doctrines must produce in 
 the entire world ; and asks at the same time how it could be 
 possible for the bishops to consent to abdicate their episcopal 
 authority, concentrating it in the hands of one alone ; and how 
 it could have been imagined that princes would lower their 
 sovereignty before the supremacy of the Court of Rome. 
 
 Lastly, concluding, from all that has been set forth, that 
 political and not religious interests are being discussed in the 
 Council, Count Daru demands that the Governments be heard, or 
 at least admitted to bear testimony to the characters, disposi- 
 tions, and spirit (disposizioni di spirito) of the peoples they repre- 
 sent ; and in particular that since Prance, by reason of the special 
 protection which for twenty years she has exercised over the 
 Pontifical State, has quite special duties to perform, he demands 
 that the Government of that nation be permitted to exercise its 
 right of receiving, communication of projected decisions touching 
 politics, and of requesting the delay necessary for bringing its 
 observations before the Council, before any resolution be adopted 
 by the same. 
 
 This is an abstract of the' dispatch communicated to me by the 
 Marquis de Banneville. I have thought proper to inform your 
 Lordship of it ; with the view, moreover, of communicating to 
 you some short considerations which I think necessary to put in 
 a clearer light the points touched upon by the minister, and to 
 reply to the deductions made by him with respect to the points 
 submitted to the deliberations of the Council. 
 
 And first, I cannot dispense myself from manifesting to your 
 Lordship the satisfaction with which the Holy Father received 
 the declaration expressed at the begianing of Count Darn's de- 
 spatch, and repeated in the sequel, of the fixed intention of the 
 
APPENDIX. 175 
 
 French Government to respect, and cause to be respected, in any 
 event, the fall liberty of tbe Council, as well in tlie discussion of 
 the constitution referred to as of all others which shall hereafter 
 come to be proposed to the examination of the venerable assem- 
 bly. This declaration, which does great honour to the Govern- 
 ment of a Catholic nation, is considered by the Holy See as the 
 natural consequence of that protection which, for more than 
 twenty years, France has exercised towards it ; a protection 
 which has called forth several times public demonstrations of 
 gratitude on the part of the Supreme Pontiff, who always, but 
 especially at the present moment, cannot do less than recognise 
 and appreciate all its importance. 
 
 But, coming closer to the object of Count Daru's despatch, I 
 must say frankly that I am quite unable to understand (non mi 
 e dato di comprendere) how the declarations contained in the 
 draft of Constitution on the Church, and the respective canons — 
 published in the ' Augsburg Gazette ' by a breach of the Pontifi- 
 cal secret — could have produced so grave and profound an im- 
 pression on the mind of the French Cabinet, as to induce it to 
 change the line of conduct which it bad properly traced out for 
 itself in regard to the discussions of the Vatican Council. The 
 subjects treated in that draft of constitution, and in the canons 
 appertaining to it, whatever modification they may undergo in 
 the sequel from the judgment and decision of the Episcopate, are 
 no more than the exposition of the maxims and fundamental 
 principles of the Church ; principles repeated over and over again 
 in the Acts of former General Councils, proclaimed and developed 
 in several Pontifical Constitutions, pubhshed in all Catholic 
 states, and particularly in the celebrated dogmatic Bulls beginning 
 ' Unigenitus,' and ' Auctorem Fidei,' where all the aforesaid 
 doctrines are generally confirmed and sanctioned ; principles, 
 finally, which have constantly formed the basis of teaching in all 
 periods of the Church, and in all Catholic schools, and have been 
 defended by an innumerable host of ecclesiastical writers, whose 
 works have served for text ia public schools and colleges, as well 
 Government schools as others, without any contradiction on the 
 part of the civil authority, but rather, for the most part, with 
 the approbation and encouragement of the same. 
 
 Much less would it be possible for me to agree upon the char- 
 acter and extent g^ven by the minister to the doctrines contained 
 in the aforesaid canons. In virtue of them there is not attributed, 
 either to the Church or the Roman Pontifi", that direct and abso- 
 lute power over the whole aggregate of political rights, of which 
 
176 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 tiie despatch speaks ; nor is tlie subordination of the civil to the 
 religions power to be nnderstood in the sense set forth by him, 
 but in another order of quite different bearing. 
 
 And in truth the Church has never intended, nor now intends, to 
 exercise any direct and absolute power over the political rights of 
 the State. Having received from God the lofty mission of guiding 
 men, whether individually or as congregated in society, to a super- 
 natural end, she has by that very fact the authority and the duty 
 to judge concerning the morality and justice of all acts, internal 
 and external, in relation to their conformity with the natural and 
 divine law. And as no action, whether it be ordained by a 
 supreme power, or be freely elicited by an individual, can be 
 exempt from this character of morality and justice, so it happens 
 that the judgment of the Church, though falling directly on the 
 morality of the acts, indirectly reaches over everything with 
 which that morality is conjoined. But this is not the same 
 thing as to interfere directly in political affairs, which, by the 
 order estabhshed by God and by the teaching of the Church 
 herself, appertains to the temporal power without dependence on 
 any other authority. The subordination also of the civil to the 
 religious power is in the sense of the pre-eminence of the 
 sacerdotium over the imperium, because of the superiority of the 
 end of the one over that of the other.* Hence the authority of 
 the imperium depends on that of the sacerdotium, as human 
 things on divine, temporal on spiritual. And if temporal 
 happiness, which is the end of the civil power, is subordinate to 
 eternal beatitude, which is the spiritual end of the sacerdotium, 
 it follows that in order to reach the end to which it has pleased 
 God to direct them, the one power is subordinate to the other. 
 Their powers (I say) are respectively subordinate in the same 
 way as the ends to which they are directed. 
 
 It results from these principles that, if the infallibility of the 
 Church extends also (not, however, in the sense indicated by the 
 French despatch) to all that is necessary to preserve intact the 
 Deposit of Faith, no harm is thereby done to science, history, or 
 politics. The prerogative of infallibility is not an unknown fact 
 in the Catholic world ; the supreme magisteriwm of the Church- 
 has dictated in every age rules of faith, without the internal 
 order of States being thereby affected (risentirsene), or princes 
 
 * We have no exact English equivalents for the abstract terms — sacerdozio, 
 impero. ' Sacerdozio ' means the priestly office, and ' impero ' civil authority 
 in the most general sense. — Note of Te.] , 
 
APPENDIX. 1 77 
 
 being disquieted thereat ; rather, wisely appreciating the in- 
 fluence which such rales have on the good order of civil society, 
 these have been themselves, from time to time, the vindicators 
 and defenders of the doctrines defined, and have promoted, by 
 the concurrence of the royal power, their full and respectful 
 observance. 
 
 It follows, moreover, that if the Church was instituted by its 
 Divine Founder as a true and perfect society, distinct from the 
 civil power and independent of it, with full authority in the 
 triple order, legislative, judicial, and coercive, no confusion 
 springs therefrom in the march of human society, and in the 
 exercise of the rights of the two powers. The competence of the 
 one and the other is clearly distinct and determined, according 
 to the end to which they are respectively directed. The Church 
 does not, in virtue of her authority, intervene directly and 
 absolutely in the constitutive principles of governments, in the 
 forms of civil regulations, in the political rights of citizens, in 
 the duties of the State, and in the other points indicated in the 
 minister's note. But, whereas no civil society can subsist 
 without a supreme principle regulating the morality of its acts 
 and laws, the Church has received from Qod this lofty mission, 
 which tends to the happiness of the people, while she in no way 
 embarrasses, by the exercise of this her ministry, the free and 
 prompt action of Governments. She, in fact, by inculcating the 
 principle of rendering to God that which is God's, and to Caesar 
 that which is Csesar's, imposes at the same time upon her 
 children the obligation of obeying the authority of princes for 
 conscience sake. But these should also recognize that if any- 
 where a law is made opposed to the principles of eternal justice, 
 to obey would not be a giving to Csesar that which is Csesar's, 
 but a taking from God that which is God's. 
 
 I proceed now to say a word on the profound impression which 
 the minister expects will be made throughout the world by the 
 mere enunciation of the principles developed in the draft of con- 
 stitution which forms the object of his despatch. In truth it is 
 not easy to persuade oneself how the doctrines contained in that 
 draft, and understood in the sense above pointed out, can produce 
 the profound impression of which the minister speaks ; unless in- 
 deed their epirit and character be wrested, or that he speaks of 
 those who, professing principles different from those professed by 
 the Catholic Church, cannot of course approve of such principles 
 being inculcated and sanctioned afresh. I say afresh ; because 
 the doctrines contained in that document, as I have already 
 
 N 
 
178 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 remarked, far from being new and unheard of, embrace no more 
 (non sono nel loro complesso) tlian tlie reproduction of the 
 Catholic teaching professed in every age and iu every Church, as 
 will be solemnly proved by all the pastors of the Catholic name, 
 called by the head of the hierarchy to bear authentic witness, in 
 the midst of the Council, to the faith and traditions of the Church 
 Universal. It is to be hoped rather that the Catholic doctrine, 
 once more solemnly confirmed by the Fathers of the Vatican 
 Council, will be greeted by the faithfal people as the rainbow of 
 peace and the dawn of a brighter future. The object of confirm- 
 ing those doctrines is no other than to recall to modern society 
 the maxims of justice and virtue, and thus to restore to the world 
 that peace and prosperity which can only be found in the perfect 
 keeping of the divine law. This is the firm hope of all honest 
 men, who received with joy the announcement of the Council ; 
 this is the conviction of the Fathers of the Church, who have as- 
 sembled with alacrity in such numbers at the voice of the Chief 
 Pastor ; this is the prayer which the Vicar of Jesus Christ is 
 always sending up to God in the midst of the gx-ievous troubles 
 which surround his Pontificate. 
 
 For the rest, I do not understand why the bishops should have 
 to renounce their episcopal authority in consequence of the defini- 
 tion of Pontifical InfallibiHty. This prerogative is not only as 
 ancient as the Church herself, but has been, moreover, always 
 exercised in the Roman Church, without the divine authority and 
 the rights conferred by God on the pastors of the Church being 
 thereby altered in the least degree. Its definition therefore would 
 in no way go to change the relations between the bishops and 
 their head. The rights of the one and the prerogatives of the 
 other are well defined in the Church's divine constitution ; and 
 the confirmation of the Roman Pontifi''s supreme authority and 
 magisterium, far from being prejudicial to the rights of bishops, 
 will furnish a new support to their authority and magisterium, 
 since the strength and vigour of the members is just so much as 
 comes to them_from the head. 
 
 By parity of reason — the authority of the pastors of the Church 
 being strengthened anew by the solemn confirmation of Pontifi- 
 cal Infallibility — that of princes, especially Catholic princes, will 
 be no less strengthened. The prosperity of the Church and the 
 peace of the State depend upon the close and intimate union of 
 the two supreme powers. Who does not see then that the au- 
 thority of princes not only vidll not receive any blow from the 
 pontifical supremacy, but will instead find therein its stronffest 
 
APPENDIX. 179 
 
 support ? As sons of the Church, they owe obedience, respect, 
 and protection to the authority placed on earth by God to guide 
 piinces and peoples to the last end of eternal salvation ; nor can 
 they refuse to recognise that royal power has been granted them 
 for the defence also and guardianship of Christian society. But 
 by the very fact of the principle of auttority receiving new vigour 
 in the Church and in its head, the sovereign power must neces- 
 sarily receive a new impulse, since it has from God a common 
 origin, and consequently common interests also. And so, if the 
 wickedness of the age, by separating the one from; the other, has 
 placed botK in troublesome and painful conditions, to the great 
 injury of human society, closer relations will unite both in indis- 
 soluble bonds for the defence of the grand interests of rehgion and 
 society, and will prepare for them the way to a brighter and more 
 prosperous future. 
 
 From what has been said up to this point it results clearly that 
 the Council has not been called to discuss political interests, as 
 the despatch of Count Dam seems to indicate. We may con- 
 clude, therefore, that the French Government, finding no longer 
 a sufB.cient reason for departing from the line of conduct it had 
 set itself to follow in respect of the Council, will not desire to in- 
 sist on the request for communication of the Decrees which will 
 be submitted to the examination and discussion of the venerable 
 assembly of bishops. On which point indeed it occurs to me to 
 observe that the right claimed for his purpose by the minister on 
 the ground of the Concordat in force between the Holy See and 
 France, cannot, in my opinion, find any support in that act. In 
 the first place, no special mention of this particular point is found 
 in the articles of that convention. Then, further, the relations 
 of Church and State on points belonging to both powers (punto 
 di mista competenza) having been regulated by the Concordat, 
 the decisions, which may be come to by the Vatican Council on 
 such matters will in no way alter the special stipulations made 
 by the Holy See, as well with France as with other governments, 
 as long as these place no obstacles in the way of the fiall keeping 
 of the conditions agreed upon. I may also add that if the Holy 
 See has not thought fit to invite Catholic princes to the Council, 
 as it did on other occasions, every one will easily understand that 
 this is chiefly to be attributed to the changed circumstances of 
 the times. The altered state of the relations between the Church 
 and the Civil Governments has made more diflGicult their mutual 
 action in the regulation of things religious. 
 
 I desire however to hope that the Government of his Majesty 
 
180 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 tlie Emperor, fully satisfied with the explanations given by me in. 
 the name of the Holy See to the various points of Count Darn's 
 despatch, and recognising at the same time the difficulties in 
 which the Holy Father might find himself, will not insist further 
 on the demand of communication beforehand of the drafts of 
 constitutions to be examined by the Fathers of the Council. 
 Were such demand conceded, there would be question of things 
 tending to embarrass the free action of the Council. Moreover, 
 since the Church is keeping within the limits assigned to her by 
 her Divine Pounder, no anxiety need remain to the Government 
 of his Majesty on account of the deliberations which may come to 
 be adopted by the Episcopal assembly. Finally the French 
 Government will thus give, by the very fact, a new proof of those 
 dispositions of goodwill which it has manifested in respect of the 
 full liberty of the Couciliar deUberations, and of the confidence 
 which it declares it reposes in the wisdom and prudence of the 
 Apostolic See. 
 
 Tour Lordship will please read this despatch to Count Daru, 
 as also leave him a copy. 
 
 Meanwhile receive, &c. &c., 
 
 (Signed) G. Card. A.ntonelli. 
 
APPENDIX. 181 
 
 III. 
 
 ACT OF CONDEMNATION BY THE COUNCIL OF 
 CERTAIN PAMPHLETS, &c. 
 
 Eeveeendissimi Patees, — ^Ex quo Sacrosancta Synodus Vaticana, 
 opitulante Deo, congregata est, acerrimum statim contra earn 
 bellum exarsit ; atque ad Tenerandam, eius auctoritatem penes 
 fidelem populum immimiendam, ac si fieri posset, penitns labefac- 
 tandam, contumeliose de ilia detrahere, eamque putidissimis 
 calumniis oppetere plnres scriptores certatim aggressi sunt non 
 mode inter heterodoxos et apertos Crucis Ckristi inimicos, sed 
 etiam inter eos qui Catholioae Ecclesiae filios sese dictitant, et quod 
 maxima dolendum est inter ipsos eius sacros ministros. 
 
 Quae in publicis cuiusque idiomatis ephemeridibus, quae- 
 que in libellis absque auctoris nomine passim editis et furtive 
 distributis, congesta bac de re fuerint probrosa mendacia, omnes 
 apprime norunt, quin nobis necesse sit ilia singillatim edicere. 
 Verum inter anonynios istiusmodi libellos duo praesertim extant, 
 gallice conscripti sub titulis : Ge qui se passe au Gonoile et La 
 demiere heure du Gonaile, qui ob suam calumniandi artem, 
 obtrectandique licentiam ceteris palmam praeripuisse videntur. 
 In his enim nedum buius Concilii dignitas ac plena libertas 
 turpissimis oppugnantur mendaciis, iuraque Apostolicae Sedis 
 evertuntur ; sed ipsa quoque SSmi Dni Nostri augusta persona 
 gravibus lacessitur iniuriis. lam vero Nos officii nostri memores, 
 ne silentium nostrum, si diutius protraberetur, sinistra a 
 malevolis bominibus interpretari valeat, contra tot tantasque 
 obtrectationes vocem extoUera cogimur, atque in conspectu 
 omnium vestrum, Rflii Patres, protestari ac declarare : falsa om- 
 nino esse et calumniosa quaacumque in praedictis ephemeridibus et 
 libellis affutiuntur, sive in spratum. et contumeliam SSmi Dili 
 Nostri et Apostolicae Sedis, sive in dedecus buius Sacrosanctae 
 Synodi, et contra assertum defectum in ilia lagitimae libertatis. 
 
 Datum ex Aula Concilii Yaticani, dia 1 6 lulii 1870. 
 
 Phimppus Card. Db Angelis Praeses. 
 Aktoninus Card. De Luca Praeses. 
 Andreas Card. Bizzaebi Praeses, 
 Alotsius Card. Bilio Praeses. 
 Hannibal Card. Capalti Praeses. 
 
 losEPHUs Ep. 8. Hippolijii, Secretarius. 
 
18? THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 IV. 
 
 TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONS. 
 
 CONSTITUTIO DOGMATICA DB FIDE CATHOLICA. 
 
 PIUS EPISCOPUS, SERVOS SERVOEUM DEI, SAGRO APPfiOBANTE 
 CONCILIO, AD PERPETUAM EEI MEMOEIAM. 
 
 Dei Pilius et generis humaai Redemptor Dominus Noster Jesua 
 Christus, ad. Patrem coelestein rediturus, cum. Ecclesia sua in 
 terns militante, omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem 
 sseculi futurum se esse promisit. Quare dilectse Sponsse praesto 
 esse, adsistere docenti, operanti benedicere, periclitanti opem 
 ferre nullo unquam tempore destitit. Hsec vero salutaris ejus 
 providentia, cum ex aliis beneficiis innumeris continenter appa- 
 ruit, turn iis mauifestissime comperta est fructibus, qui orbi 
 christiano e Conciliis oecumenicis ac nominatim e Tridentino, 
 iniquis licet temporibus celebrate, amplissimi provenerunt. Hino 
 enim sanctissima religionis dogmata pressius definita, uberiusque 
 exposita, errores damnati atque coMbiti ; Mnc ecclesiastica dis- 
 ciplina restituta firmiusque sancita, promotum in Clero scientise 
 et pietatis studium, parata adolescentibus ad sacram militiam 
 edncandis collegia, cbristiani denique populi naores et accuratiore 
 fidelium eruditione et frequentiore saeramentorum usu instaurati. 
 Hino prreterea arctior membrorum cum visibili capite communio, 
 universoque corpori Christi mystico additus vigor ; bine religiosae 
 multiplicatae famili», aliaque cbristianse pietatis instituta, hinc 
 ille etiam assiduus et usque ad sanguinis effusionem constans 
 ardor iu Christi regno late per orbem propagando. 
 
 Verumtamen hsec aliaque insignia emolumenta, quae per ulti- 
 mam maxima cecumenicam Synodum divina dementia EcclesieB 
 largita est, dum grato, quo par est, animo recolimus, acerbum 
 compescere baud possumus dolorem ob mala gravissima, iude 
 potissimum orta, quod ejusdem sacrosanctse Synodi apud per- 
 
APPENDIX. 183 
 
 multos vel aucfcoritas contempta, vel sapientissima neglecta faere 
 decreta. 
 
 Nemo enim ignorat hoereses quas Tridentini Patres proscrip- 
 serunt, dum, rejecto divino Ecclesies magisterio, res ad religionem 
 spectantes privati cujusvis judicio permitterentur, in seotas paula- 
 tim dissolutas esse multiplices, quibus inter se dissentientibus et 
 conoertantibus, oranis tandem in Christum fides apud non paucos 
 labefacta est. Itaque ipsa sacra Biblia, quae antea cliristianae 
 doctrinse unions fons et judex asserebantur, jam non pro divinis 
 haberi, imo mythicis commentis accenseri coeperunt. 
 
 Turn nata est et late nimis per orbem vagata ilia rationalismi 
 sen naturalismi doctrina, quse religioni cbristianJB utpote super- 
 naturali instituto per omnia adyersans, summo studio molitur, 
 ut Christo, qui solus Dominus et Salvator noster est, a mentibus 
 humanis, a vita et moribus populorum excluso, merae quod 
 vocant rationis Tel naturse regnum stabiliatur. Relicta autem 
 projectaque Christiana religione, negato vero Deo et Christo ejus, 
 prolapsa tandem est multorum mens in pantheismi materialismi 
 atheismi barathrum, ut jamipsamrationalemnaturam, omnemque 
 justi rectique normam negantes, ima humane societatis fanda- 
 menta diruere connitantur. 
 
 Hac pofro impietate circumquaque grassante, infeliciter con- 
 tigit, ut plures etiam e catholicse BcclesiEe filiis a via verse pietatis 
 aberrarent, in iisque, diminutis paullatim veritatibus, sensus catho- 
 licus attenuaretur. Variis enim ao peregrinis doctrinis abducti, 
 natui'ain et gratiam, scientiam humanam et fidem divinam perpe- 
 ram commiscentes, genuinum sensum dogmatum, quem tenet ac 
 docet Sancta Mater Ecclesia, depravare, integritatemque et sin- 
 ceritatem fidei in periculum adduoere comperiuntur. 
 
 Quibus omnibus perspectis, fieri qui potest, ut non commovean- 
 tur intima Ecclesife viscera ? Quemadmodum enim Deus vult 
 omnes homines salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire ; 
 quemadmodum Christus venit, ut salvum faceret, quod perierat, 
 et filios Dei, qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum : ita Ecclesia, 
 a Deo populorum mater et magistra constituta, omnibus debitri- 
 cem se novit, ac lapses erigere, labantes sustinere, revertentes 
 amplecti, confirmare bonos et ad meliora provehere parata semper 
 et intenta est. Quapropter nullo tempore a Dei veritate, quss 
 sanat omnia, testanda et praedicanda quiescere potest, sibi dictum 
 esse non ignorans : ' Spiritus meus, qui est in te, et verba mea, 
 quse posui in ore tuo, non recedent de ore tuo amodo et usque in 
 sempiternum.' * 
 
 * Isai. lix. 21. 
 
184 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Nos ifcaque, inliserentes Prffidecessorum Nostrorum vestigiis, pro 
 supremo Nostro Apostolico munere Teritatem catholicam docere 
 ao tueri, perversasquo doctrinas reprobare nunquam intennisimus. 
 Nunc autem sedentibus Nobiscum et judicantibus universi orbis 
 Episcopis, in banc CBCumenicam Synodum anctoritate Nostra in 
 Spiritu Sancto congregatis, innixi Dei verbo scripto et tradito, 
 prout ab Ecolesia catbolica sancte custoditum et genuine exposi- 
 tum accepimus, ex bao Petri Cathedra in conspectu omniam 
 salutarem Christi doctrinam profiteri et declarare constituimus, 
 adversis erroribus potestate nobis a Deo tradita proscriptis atque 
 damnatis. 
 
 CAPUT I. 
 
 DE DEO EEEUM OMNIUM CKEATOEE. 
 
 Sancta Catbolica Apostolica Romana Eoclesia credit et confite- 
 tur, unum esse Deum verum et vivum, Creatorem ac Dominum 
 coeli et terrre, omnipotentem, setemum, immensum, incomprebensi- 
 bilem, intellectu ac voluntate omnique perfectione infinitum ; qui 
 cum sit una singularis, simplex omnino et incommutabilis sub- 
 stantia spiritualis, preedicandus est re et essentia a mundo 
 distinctus, in se et ex se beatissimus, et super omnia, qusB prseter 
 ipsum sunt et concipi possunt, inefiabiliter excelsus. 
 
 Hie solus verus Deus bonitate suS, et omnipotenti virtute non 
 ad augendam suam beatitudinem, nee ad acquirendam, sed ad 
 manifestandam perfectionem suam per bona, quae creaturis imper- 
 titur, liberrimo consilio simul ab initio temporis utramque de 
 nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam 
 videlicet et mundanam, ac deinde bumanam quasi communem ex 
 spiritu et cor pore constitutam.* 
 
 Universa vero, quEe condidit, Deus providentia sua tuetur atque 
 gubernat, attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponens 
 omnia suaviter.f Omnia enim nuda et aperta sunt oculis ejtts,J 
 ea etiam, quae libera creaturarum actione futura sunt. 
 
 » Coneil. Lateran. IV. cap. i. De fide Catholioa. f Sap. riii. 1. 
 
 t Cf. Hebr. iv. 13. 
 
APPENDIX. 185 
 
 CAPUT ir. 
 
 DE EEVJilLATIONB. 
 
 Eadem sancta Mater Eoclesia tenet et docet, Deum, renim. 
 omniuia principium et finem, natural! humanaa rationis lumine e 
 rebns creatis" certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim. ipsius, a 
 creatura mundi, per ea quse facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur : * 
 attamen placuisse ejus sapientiaa et bonitati, alia, eaque supernatu- 
 rali via se ipsum ac eeterna voluntatis suse decreta humano generi 
 revelare, dicente Apostolo : ' Multifariam, multisque naodis olim 
 Dens loquens patribus in Proplietis r novisskne, diebus istis locu- 
 tus est nobis in FiLio.' f 
 
 Huio divinsB revelationi tribuendum quidem est, nt ea, quse in 
 rebus divinis huraanss rationi per se impervia non sunt, in prsesenti 
 quoque generis bumani conditione ab omnibus expedite, firmS, 
 certitudine et nullo admixto errore cognosci possint. Non hac 
 tamen de causa revelatio absolute necessaria dicenda est, sed quia 
 Deus ex infinita bonitate sua ordinavit bominem ad finem super- 
 naturalem, ad participanda scilicet bona divina, quse humanae 
 mentis intelligentiam omnino superant ; siquidem oculus non vidit, 
 nee auris audivit, nee in cor kominis ascendit, qu» praeparavit 
 Deus iis, qui diligunt ilium. J 
 
 Hsec porro supematuralis revelatio, secundum universalis 
 Ecclesiee fidem, a sancta Tridentina Synodo declaratam, contine- 
 tur in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quas ipsius 
 Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptse, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu 
 Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditse, ad nos usque pervene- 
 runt.§ Qui quidem veteris et novi Testamenti libri integri cum 
 omnibus suis partibus, prout in ejusdem Ooncilii decreto recen- 
 sentur, et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et 
 canonicis snscipiendi sunt. Eos vero Ecclesia pro sacris et canon- 
 icis babet, non ideo quod sola bumana industria oonoinnati, sua 
 deinde auctoritate sint approbati ; nee ideo dumtaxat, quod 
 revelationem sine errore contineant ; sed propterea quod Spiritu 
 Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum babent auctorem, atqne nt 
 tales ipsi Ecclesise traditi sunt. 
 
 Quoniam vero, quse sancta Tridentina Synodus de interpreta- 
 tione divinEB Scripturse ad coercenda petulantia ingenia salubriter 
 decrevit, a quibusdam bominibus prave exponuntur, Nos, idem 
 
 * Rom. i. 20. t Hebr. i. 1, 2. J I Cor. ii. 9. 
 
 § Concil. Trid. Sess. IV. de Can. Script. 
 
186 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 decretum renovantes, hano illius mentem esse declaramus, ut in 
 rebus fidei et morum, ad Eediflcationem dootrinEB OtiristiaiiEe, per- 
 tmentium, is pro vero sensu sacrse Scripturse habendus sit, quem 
 tenuit ac tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia, cnjus est judicare de vero 
 sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum ; atque ideo 
 nemini licere contra hunc sensum, aut etiam contra unanimem 
 consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram iuterpretari. 
 
 CAPUT III. 
 
 DB FIDE. 
 
 Quum homo a Deo tanquam Creatore et Domino suo totus de- 
 pendeat, et ratio creata increatse Veritati penitiis subjecta sit, 
 plenum revelanti Deo intellectus et voluntatis obsequium fide 
 preestare tenemur. Hanc vero fidem, quse humanfe salutis 
 initium est, Ecclesia catholica profitetur, virtntem esse super- 
 naturalem, qua, Dei aspirante et adjuvante gratia, ab eo revelata 
 vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem 
 naturali rationis lunaine perspectam, sed propter auctoritatem 
 ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nee falli nee fallere potest. Est enim 
 fides, testante Apostolo, sperandarum substantia rerum, argumen- 
 tum non apparentinm.* 
 
 Ut nibilominns fidei nostrse obsequium ration! consentaneum 
 esset, voluit Deus cum internis Spiritus Sancti auxiliis externa 
 jungi revelationis suae argumenta, facta scilicet divina, atque 
 imprimis miracula et prophetias, quEe cum Dei omnipotentiam et 
 infinitam scientiam luculenter commonstrent, diviuEe revelationis 
 signa sunt certissima et omnium intelligentiaB accommodata. 
 Quare tum Moyses et Propbetse, tum ipse maxime Christus 
 Dominus multa et manifestissima miracula et prophetias ediderunt, 
 et de Apostolis legiinus : ' UK autem profecti prssdicaverunt 
 ubique. Domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante, sequentibus 
 signis.' t Et rursum scriptum est : ' Habemus firmiorem propheti- 
 cum sermonem, cui bene facitis attendentes quasi lucernse lucenti 
 in caliginoso loco.' J 
 
 Licet autem fidei assensus nequaquam sit motus animi csecns : 
 nemo tamen evangelicse prEedicationi oonsentire potest, sicut 
 oportet ad salutem consequendam, absque illuminatione et inspi- 
 
 * Hebr. xi. 1. f Marc. xvi. 20. f 2 Petr. i. 19. 
 
APPENDIX. 187 
 
 ratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat omnibus suavitatem in consenti- 
 endo et credendo veritati.* Quare fides ipsa in se, etiamsi per 
 oliaritatem non operetur, donum Dei est, et actus ejus est opus ad 
 salutem pertinens, quo homo liberam praastat ipsi Deo obedien- 
 tiam gratise ejus, cui resistere posset, consentiendo et cooperando. 
 Porro fide divina et catholic^ ea omnia credenda sunt, quse in 
 verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur, et ab Bcolesia sive 
 solemni judicio sive ordinario et universal! magisterio tamquam 
 divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur. 
 
 Quoniam vero sine fide impossibile est placere Deo, et ad 
 filiorum ejus consortium pervenire ; ideo nemini unquam sine ilia 
 contigit justificatio, nee ullus, nisi in e^ perseveraverit usque in 
 finem, vitam ffiternam assequetur. Ut autem officio veram fidem 
 amplectendi, in eaque constanter perseverandi satisfacere posse- 
 mus. Dens per Filium suum unigenitum Ecclesiam instituit, suseque 
 institutionis mamifestis notis instruxit, ut ea tamquam custos et 
 magistra verbi revelati ab omnibus posset agnosci. Ad solam 
 enim catbolicam Ecclesiam ea pertinent omnia, quaa ad evidentem 
 fidei cbristianae credibilitatem tarn multa et tam mira divinitus 
 sunt disposita. Quin etiam Eoclesia per se ipsa, ob suam nempe 
 admirabilem propagationem, eximiam sanctitatem et inexhaustam 
 in omnibus bonis foecunditatem, ob catbolicam unitatem, invict- 
 amqne stabilitatem, magnum quoddam et perpetuum est motivum 
 credibilitatis et divinse'suse legationis testimonium irrefragabile. 
 
 Quo fit, ut ipsa veluti signum levatum in nationes,t et ad se 
 invitet, qui nondum crediderunt, et filios suos certiores faciat, 
 firmissimo niti fnndamento fidem, quam profitentur. Cui quidem 
 testimonio efficax subsidium accedit ex supernS, virtute. Etenira. 
 benignissimus Dominus et errantes gratia sua excitat atque 
 adjuvat, ut ad agnitionem veritatis venire possint ; et eos, quos 
 de tenebris transtulit in admirabile lumen suum, in hoc eodem 
 lumine ut perseverent, gratia sua confirmat, non deserens, nisi 
 deseratur. Quocirca minime par est conditio eorum, qui per 
 cceleste fidei donum catholicse veritati adhasserunt, atque eorum, 
 qui ducti opinionibus humanis, falsam religionem sectantur ; illi 
 enim, qui fidem sub Ecolesise magisterio susceperunt, nuUam un- 
 quam habere possunt justam causam mutandi, aut in dubium 
 fidem eamdem revocandi. Quae cum ita sint, gratias agentes Deo 
 Patri, qui dignos nos fecit in partem aortis sanctorum in lumine, 
 tantam ne negligamus salutem, sed aspicientes in auctorem fidei 
 et consummatorem Jesum, teneamus spei nostrse confessionem 
 • indeclinabilem. 
 
 » Syn. Araus. ii. can. 7. t Isai. xi. 12. 
 
188 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 CAPUT IV. 
 
 DE FIDE ET EATIONB. 
 
 Hoc quoque perpetuus Bcclesiae catliolicae consensus tentiit et 
 tenet, duplicem esse ordinem cognitiouis, non solum principio, sed 
 objeoto etiam distinctum : principio quidem, quia in altero 
 naturali ratione, in altero fide divina cognoscimus ; objecto 
 autem, quia prseter ea, ad quae naturalis ratio pertingere potest, 
 credenda nobis proponuntur mysteria in Deo abscondita, quse, 
 nisi revelata divinitus, innotescere non possunt. Quocirca Apo- 
 stolus, qui a gentibus Deum per ea, quae facta sunt, cognitum esse 
 testatur, disserens tamen de gratia et veritate, qu8e per Jesum 
 Christum facta est,* pronuntiat : ' Loquimur Dei sapientiam in 
 mysterio, quse abscondita est, quam prssdestinavit Dens ante 
 ssecula in gloriam nostram, quam nemo principum bujus sseculi 
 cognovit : nobis antem revelavit Deus per Spiritum suum : 
 Spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam profunda Dei.f Et ipse 
 Dnigenitus confitetur Patri, quia abscondit bsec a sapientibus, et 
 prudentibus, et revelavit ea parvulis.J 
 
 Ac ratio quidem, fide illustrata, cum sedulo, pie et sobrie 
 quserit, aliquam, Deo dante, mysteriorum intelligentiam eamque 
 fructuosissimam assequitur, tum ex eorum, quae naturaliter cogno- 
 scit, analogia, turn e mysteriorum ipsorum nexu inter se et cum 
 fine hominis ultimo ; numquam tamen idonea redditur ad ea 
 perspicienda instar veritatum, qase proprium ipsius objectum 
 constituunt. Divina enim mysteria suapte natura intellectum 
 creatum sic excedunt, ut etiam revelatione tradita et fide suscepta, 
 ipsius tamen fidei velamine contecta et quadam quasi caligine 
 obvoluta maneant, quamdiu in bac mortali vitH peregrinamur a 
 Domino : per fidem enim ambulamus, et non per speciem.§ 
 
 Verum etsi fides sit supra rationem, nulla tamen unquam inter 
 fidem et rationem vera dissensio esse potest ; cum idem Deus, 
 qui mysteria revelat et fidem infundit, animo bumano rationis 
 lumen indiderit; Deus autem negare seipsum non possit, nee 
 verum vero unquam contradicere. Inanis autem hujus contra- 
 dictionis species inde potissimum oritur, quod vel fidei dogmata 
 ad mentem Bcclesise intellecta et exposita non fuerint, vel 
 opinionum commenta pro rationis efiatis habeantur. Omnem 
 igitur assertionem veritati illuminatse fidei contrariam omnino 
 
 * Joan, i. 17. t 1 Cor, ii. 7, 9. J Matth. xi. 25. § 2 Cor. v. 7. 
 
APPENDIX. 189 
 
 falsam esse definimus.* Porro Ecclesia, quae una cum apostolico 
 munere docendi, mandatum accepit, fidei depositum custodiendi, 
 jus etiam at offioium divinitus habet falsi nominis scientiam 
 proscribendi, ne quis decipiatur per pMlosopbiaui, et iuanem 
 fallaciam.f Quapropter omnes cliristiani fideles hujusmodi opi- 
 Biones, quse fidei dootrinffi contrarise esse cognoscuntur, maxime 
 si ab Ecclesia reprobatse fuerint, non solum probibentur tanquam. 
 legitimas scientise couclusiones defeudere, sed pro erroribus potius, 
 qui fallacem veritatis speciem prse se ferant, habere tenentur 
 omniao. 
 
 Neque soliim fides et ratio inter se dissidere nunquam possunt, 
 sed opem. quoque sibi mutuam ferunt, cum. recta ratio fidei fiin- 
 damenta demonstret, ejusque lumine illustrata rerum divinarum 
 scientiam excolat ; fides Tero rationem ab erroribus liberet ac 
 tueatur, eamque multiplici cognitione instruat. Quapropter 
 tantum abest, ut Ecclesia bumanarum artium et disciplinarum 
 ctiltursB obsistat, ut banc multis modis juvet atque promoveat. 
 JNoneuimcommodaab iis adbominumvitam dimanantia autignorat 
 aut despicit ; fatetur imo, eas, quemadmodum a Deo, scientiarum 
 Domino, profectsB sunt, ita si rite pertractentur, ad Deum, juvante 
 ejus gratia, perducere. Nee sane ipsa vetat, ne bujusmodi disci- 
 plinsB in suo qussque ambitu propriis utantur principiis et propria 
 methodo ; sed justam banc libertatem agnoscens, id sedulo cavet, 
 ne divinse doctrinse repugnando errores in se suscipiant, aut fines 
 proprios trangressse, ea, quse sunt fidei, occupeut et perturbent. 
 
 Neque enim fidei doctrina, quam Deus revelavit, velut pbiloso- 
 pbicum inventum proposita est humanis ingeniis perficienda, sed 
 tanquam divinum depositum Gbristi Sponsse tradita, fideliter 
 custodiendo et infallibiliter declaranda. Hinc sacrorum quoque 
 dogmatum is sensus perpetuo est retinendus, quem semel declar- 
 aTit Sancta Mater Ecclesia, nee uuquam ab eo sensu, altioris 
 intelligentise specie et nomine, recedendum. Crescat igitur et 
 multnm vebementerque proficiat, tarn singulorum, quam omnium, 
 tarn unius bominis, quam totius Ecclesise, setatum ac seculorum 
 gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia : sed in suo dumtaxat 
 genere, in eodem scilicet dogmata, eodem sensu, eademque 
 sententia.J 
 
 * Conoil. Lateran. V. Bulla Apostolioi regiminis. •^ Coloss. ii. 8. 
 
 I Vincent. Lirin, Common, n. 28., 
 
190 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 GANONES. 
 
 De JDeo rerwm omnium Oreatore. 
 
 1. Si quis Tiiiiim verum Deum visibilium et invisibilium Crea- 
 torum et Dominum negaYerit ; anathema sit. 
 
 2. Si quis prseter materiam nihil esse affirmare non erubuerit ; 
 anathema sit. 
 
 3. Si quis dixerit, unam eamdemque esse Dei etrerum omnium 
 substantiam vel essentiam ; anathema sit. 
 
 4. Si quis dixerit, res finitas, tum corporeas turn spirituales, 
 aut saltem spirituales, e divina substantia emanasse ; 
 
 aut divinam essentiam sui manifestatione vel evolutione fieri 
 omnia ; 
 
 aut denique Deum esse ens universale seu indefinitum, quod 
 sese determinando constituat rerum universitatem in genera, species 
 et individua distinctam ; anathema sit. 
 
 6. Si quis non confiteatur, mundum, resque omnes, quae in eo 
 continentur, et spirituales et materiales, secundum totam suam 
 substantiam a Deo ex nihilo esse productas ; 
 
 aut Deum dixerit non voluntate ab omni necessitate libera, sed 
 tarn necessario creasse, quam necessario amat seipsum ; 
 
 aut mundum ad Dei gloriam conditum esse negaverit ; anathema 
 sit. 
 
 II. 
 
 De BevelaUone. 
 
 1. Si quis dixerit, Deum unum et verum, Creatorem et 
 Dominum nostrum, per ea, quae facta sunt, naturali rationis 
 humansB lumine certo oognosoi non posse ; anathema sit. 
 
 2. Si quis dixerit, fieri non posse, aut non expedire, ut per 
 revelationem divinam homo de Deo, cultuque ei exhibendo 
 edoceatur ; anathema sit. 
 
 3. Si quis dixerit, hominem ad cognitionem et perfectionem, 
 quae naturalem superet, divinitus evehi non posse, sed ex seipso 
 ad omnis tandem veri et boni possessionem jugi profectu per- 
 tingere posse et debere ; anathema sit. 
 
APPENDIX. 191 
 
 4. Si quis sacr» Scripturse libros integros cum omnibus suis 
 partibus, prout illos sancta Tridentina Synodus recensuit, pro 
 sacris et canonicis non susceperit, aut eos divinitiis inspiratos esse 
 negaverit ; anatliem.a sit. 
 
 III. 
 
 Be Fide. 
 
 1. Si quis dixerit, rationem. humanam ita independentem. esse, 
 ufc fides ei a Deo imperari non possit ; anatbema sit. 
 
 2. Si quis dixerit, fidem divinam a naturali de Deo et rebus 
 moralibus scientia non distingxii, ac propterea ad fidem divinam 
 non requiri, ut revelata 'Veritas propter auctoritatem Dei re- 
 velantis credatur ; anathema sit. 
 
 3. Si quis dixerit, revelationem divinam externis signis 
 credibHem fieri non posse, ideoque soM interna cujusque ex- 
 perientia aut inspiratione privata Homines ad fidem moveri 
 debere ; -anatbema sit. 
 
 4. Si quis dixerit, miracula nulla fieri posse, proindeque onmes 
 de iis narrationes, etiam in sacra Scriptnra contentas, inter 
 fabulas- vel mytbos ablegandas esse : aut miracula certo cognosci 
 nunquam posse, nee iis divinam religionis christianse originem 
 rite probari ; anatbema sit. 
 
 5. Si quis dixerit, assensum fidei christianse non esse liberum, 
 sed argumentis humanse rationis necessario produci ; aut ad 
 solam fidem rivam,- quse per charitatem operatur, gratiam Dei 
 necessariam esse ; anathema sit. 
 
 6. Si quis dixerit, parem esse conditionem fidelium atque 
 eorum, qui ad fidem unice veram nondum pervenerunt, ita ut 
 catholioi justam causam habere possint, fidem, quam sub EcclesiEe 
 magisterio jam susceperunt, assensn suspense in dubium vocandi, 
 donee demons trationem scientificam credibiHtatis et veritatis fidei 
 suae absolverint ; anathema sit. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Be Fide et Batione. 
 
 1. Si quis dixerit, in revelatione divina nulla vera et proprie 
 dicta mysteria contineri, sed universa fidei dogmata posse per 
 rationem rite excultam e naturalibus principiis intelligi et demon- 
 strari ; anathema sit. 
 
192 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 2. Si quis dixerifc, disciplinas humanas ea cum libertate trac- 
 tandas esse, ut earum assertiones, etsi doctrinee revelatse adver- 
 sentur, tanquam verse retineri, neque ab Ecclesia proscribi 
 possint ; anathema sit. 
 
 3. Si quis dixerit, fieri posse, ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia 
 propositis, aliquando secundum progressum scientise sersus 
 tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quern intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia; 
 anatbema sit. 
 
 Itaque suprem.i pastoralis Nostri officii debitum exequentes, 
 omnes Cbristi fideles, maxime vere eos, qui praesunt vel docendi 
 munere funguntur, per viscera Jesu Cbristi obtestam.ur, nee non 
 ejusdem Dei et Salvatoris nostri auctoritate jubemus, ut ad boa 
 errores a Sancta Ecclesia arcendos et eliminandos, atquo 
 purissimsB fidei lucem pandendam studium et operam conferant. 
 
 Quoniam yero satis non est, bssreticam pravitatem devitare, 
 nisi ii quoque errores diligenter fugiantur, qui ad illam plus 
 minusve accedunt ; omnes ofl&cii monemus, servandi etiam 
 Constitutiones et Decreta, quibus pravee ejusmodi opiniones, quse 
 isthic diserte non enumerantur, ab bac SanctS, Sede proscriptse 
 et probibitse sunt. 
 
 Datum Rom» in publica Sessione in Vaticana Basilica solem- 
 niter celebrata anno Incarnationis DominicEe millesimo octingen- 
 tesimo septuagesimo, die vigesima quarta Aprilis. 
 Pontificatus Nostri anno vigesimo quarto. 
 
 Ita est. 
 
 JOSEPHUS, 
 
 Upiscopus 8. JEippolyti, 
 Secretarius Ooncilii Vaticani. 
 
 Tbanslation. 
 
 DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE 
 CATHOLIC FAITH. 
 
 PIUS, BISHOP, SEEVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, WITH 
 THE APPROVAL OF THE SACRED COUNCIL, FOR PER- 
 PETUAL REMEMBRANCE. 
 
 Cue Lobd Jesus Christ, tbe Son of God, and Redeemer of Man- 
 kind, before returning to bis heavenly Father, promised that He 
 would be with the Church Militant on earth all days, even to 
 tbe consummation of the world. Therefore, He has never ceased 
 
APPENDIX. 193 
 
 to he present with His beloved Spouse, to assist her when teach- 
 ing, to bless her when at work, and to aid her when in danger. And 
 this His salutary providence, which has been constantly displayed 
 by other innumerable benefits, has been most manifestly proved 
 by the abundant good results which Christendom has derived 
 from CEcumenical Councils, and particularly from that of Trent, 
 although it was held in evil times. For, as a consequence, the 
 sacred doctrines of the faith have been defined more closely, and 
 set forth more fully, errors have been condemned and restrained, 
 ecclesiastical discipline has been restored and more firmly secured, 
 the love of learning and of piety has been promoted among the 
 clergy, colleges have' been established to educate youth for the 
 sacred warfare, and the morals of the Christian world have been 
 renewed by the more accurate training of the faithful, and by the 
 more frequent use of the sacraments. Moreover, there has re- 
 sulted a closer communion of the members with the visible head, 
 an increase of vigour in the whole mystical body of Christ, the 
 multiplication of religious congregations and of other institutions 
 of Christian piety, and such ardour in extending the kingdom of 
 Chi-ist throughout the world, as constantly endures, even to the 
 sacrifice of life itself. 
 
 But while we recall with due thankfulness these and other 
 signal benefits which the divine mercy has bestowed on the 
 Church, especially by the last (Ecumenical Council, we cannot 
 restrain our bitter sorrow for the grave evils, which are princi- 
 pally due to the fact that the authority of that sacred Synod has 
 been contemned, or its wise decrees neglected, by many. 
 
 No one is ignorant that the heresies proscribed by the Fathers 
 of Trent, by which the divine magisterium of the Church was 
 rejected, and all matters regarding rehgion were surrendered to 
 the judgment of each individual, gradually became dissolved into 
 many sects, which disagreed and contended with one another, 
 until at length not a few lost all faith in Christ. .Even the Holy 
 Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source 
 and judge of Christian doctrine, began to be held no longer as 
 divine, but to be ranked among the fictions of mythology. 
 
 Then there arose, and too widely overspread the world, that 
 doctrine of rationahsm, or naturalism, which opposes itself in 
 every way to the Christian rehgion as a supernatural institution, 
 and works with the utmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our 
 sole Lord and Saviour, has been excluded from the minds of men, 
 and from the life and moral acts of nations, the reign of what they 
 call pure reason or nature may be established. And after for- 
 
 
 
194 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 saking and rejecting the Christian religion, and denying the true 
 God and His Christ, the minds of many have sunk into the abyss 
 of Pantheism, Materialism, and Atheism, nntil, denying rational 
 nature itself and every sound rule of right, they labour to destroy 
 the deepest foundations of human society. 
 
 Unhappily, it has yet further come to pass that, while this im- 
 piety prevailed on every side, many even of the children of the 
 Catholic Church have strayed from the path of true piety, and 
 by the gradual diminution of the truths they held, the Catholic 
 sense became weakened in them. For, led away by various and 
 strange doctrines, utterly confusing nature and grace, human 
 science and divine faith, they are found to deprave the true 
 sense of the doctrines which our Holy Mother Church holds and 
 leaches, and endanger the integrity and the soundness of the faith. 
 
 Considering these things, how can the Church fail to be deeply 
 stirred ? For, even as God wills all men to be saved, and to 
 arrive at the knowledge of the truth ; even as Christ came to 
 save what had perished, and to gather together the children of 
 God who had been dispersed, so the Church, constituted by God 
 the mother and teacher of nations, knows its own office as debtor 
 to all, and is ever ready and watchful to raise the fallen, to sup- 
 port those who are falling, to embrace those who return, to con- 
 firm the good and to carry them on to better things. Hence, it 
 can never forbear from witnessing to and proclaiming the truth of 
 God, which heals all things, knowing the words addressed to it : 
 ' My Spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy 
 mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, from henceforth and 
 for ever' (Isaias Hx. 21). 
 
 "We, therefore, following the footsteps of our predecessors, 
 have never ceased, as becomes our supreme Apostolic oflB.ce, from 
 teaching and defending Catholic tru.th, and condemning doctrines 
 of error. And now, with the Bishops of the whole world assem- 
 bled round us and judging with us, congregated by our authority, 
 and in the Holy Spirit, in this Oecumenical Council, we, supported 
 by the Word of God written and handed down as we received it 
 from the Catholic Church, preserved with sacredness and set 
 forth according to truth,^ — ^have determined to profess and declare 
 the salutary teaching of Christ from this Chair of Peter and in 
 sight of all, proscribing and condemning, by the power given to 
 us of God, all errors contrary thereto. 
 
APPENDIX. 195 
 
 •CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF GOD, THE CEEATOR OP ALL THINGS. 
 
 The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and con- 
 fesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of 
 heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, 
 Infinite in intelligence, ia will, and in all perfection, who, as being 
 one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, 
 is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, 
 of supreme beatitude in and from^ Himself, and inefiably exalted 
 above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 
 
 This one only true God, of His own goodness and almighty 
 power, not for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, 
 but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows 
 on creatures, and with absolute freedom of counsel, created out 
 of nothing, from the very first beginning of time, both the spiri- 
 tual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angehcal and the 
 mundane and afterwards the human creature, as partaking, in a 
 sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of body. 
 
 God protects and governs by His Providence all things which 
 He hath made, ' reaching from end to end mightily, find ordering 
 all things sweetly ' ("Wisdom viii. 1). For ' all things are bare 
 and open to His eyes ' (Heb. iv. 13), even those which are yet 
 to be by the free action of creatures. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF EETELATION. 
 
 The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, 
 the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by 
 the natural light of human reason, by means of created things ; 
 ' for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are 
 clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made ' 
 (Romans i. 20), but that it pleased His wisdom and- bounty to 
 reveal Himself, and the eternal decrees of His will, to mankind 
 by another and a supernatural way : as the Apostle says, ' God, 
 having. spoken On divers occasions, and many ways, in times past, 
 to the fathers by the prophets ; last of all, in these days, hath 
 spoken to us by His Son ' (Hebrews i. 1, 2). 
 
 o 2 
 
196 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation, that such truths 
 among things divine as of themselves are not beyond human 
 reason, can, even in the present condition of mankind, be known 
 by every one with facility, with firm assurance, and with no 
 admixture of error. This, however, is not the reason why reve- 
 lation is to be called absolutely necessary ; but because God of 
 His infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural end, 
 viz., to be a sharer of divine blessings which utterly exceed the 
 intelligence of the human mind : for ' eye hath not seen, nor ear 
 heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things 
 God hath prepared for them that love Him- ' (1 Cor. ii. 9). 
 
 Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the univer- 
 sal behef of the Church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent, 
 is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which 
 have come down to us, having been received by the Apostles 
 from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles them- 
 selves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, 
 as it were, from hand to hand.* And these books of the Old 
 and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in 
 their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the 
 decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latiu 
 edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and 
 canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere 
 human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, 
 nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture 
 of error, but because, having been written by the inspiration of the 
 Holy Ghost they have God for their author, and have been deli- 
 vered as such to the Church herself. 
 
 And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed 
 for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine 
 Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly 
 explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to 
 be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining 
 to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the 
 true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church hath 
 held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and 
 interpretation of the Holy Scripture ; and therefore that it is per- 
 mitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to 
 this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 * Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session the Fourth. Decree 
 concerning the Canonical Scriptures. 
 
APPENDIX. ] 97 
 
 CHAPTER" III. 
 
 ON FAITH. 
 
 Man being wholly dependent upon God, as upon his Creator 
 and Lord, and created reason being absolutely subject to uncreated 
 truth, we are bound to yield to God, by faith in His revelation, 
 the fall obedience of our intelligence and will. And the Catholic 
 Church teaches that this faith, which is the beginning of man's 
 salvation, is a supernatural virtue, whereby, inspired and assisted 
 by the grace of God, we believe that the things which He has 
 revealed are true ; not because of the intrinsic truth of the 
 things, viewed by the natural light of reason, but because of 
 the authority of God Himself who reveals them, and Who can 
 neither be deceived nor deceive. For faith, as the Apostle testi- 
 fies, is ' the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things 
 that appear not ' (Hebrews i. 11). 
 
 Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faith might be 
 in harmony with reason, God willed that to the interior help of- 
 the Holy Spirit, there should be joined exterior proofs of His 
 revelation ; to wit, divine facts, and especially miracles and pro- 
 phecies, which, as they manifestly display the omnipotence and 
 infinite knowledge of God, are most certain proofs of His divine 
 revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all men. Wherefore, 
 both Moses and the Prophets, and most especially, Christ our 
 Lord Himself, showed forth many and most evident miracles and 
 prophecies ; and of the Apostles we read : ' But they going 
 forth preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and con- 
 firming the word with signs that followed ' (Mark xvi. 20). And 
 again, it is written : ' We have the more firm prophetical word, 
 whereunto you do well to attend, 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 blind action 
 of the mind, still no man can assent to the Gospel teaching, as is 
 necessary to obtain salvation, without the illumination and inspi- 
 ration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all men sweetness in as- 
 senting to and believing in the truth.* Wherefore, Faith itself, 
 even when it does not work by charity, is in itself a gift of 
 God, and the act of faith is a work appertaining to salvation, by 
 
 * Canons of the Second Council of Orange, confirmed by Pope Boniface II.., 
 A.j>. 529, against the Semipelagians, can. vii. See J)enzwgei'B Enchiridion Suta 
 lolorum, p. SO. Wiirzburg, 1854. 
 
198 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 ■whicB. man yields Toluntary obedience to God Himself, by assent- 
 ing to and co-operating with His grace, wliicli lie is able to resist. 
 
 Furtber, all those things are to be believed with divine and 
 Catholic faith which are contained in the "Word of God, written 
 or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn 
 judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, pro- 
 poses for behef as having been divinely revealed. 
 
 And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to 
 attain to the fellowship of His children, therefore without 
 faith no one has ever attained justification, nor wUl any one 
 obtain eternal life, unless he shaU have persevered in faith unto 
 the end. And, that we may be able to satisfy the obligation of 
 embracing the true faith and of constantly persevering in it, God 
 has instituted the Church through His only begotten Son, and 
 has bestowed on it manifest notes of that institution, that it may 
 be recognised by all men as the guardian and teacher of the 
 revealed Word ; for to the Catholic Church alone belong all those 
 many and admirable tokens which have been divinely established 
 for the evident credibility of the Christian Faith. Nay, more, 
 "the Church by itself, with its marvellous extension, its eminent 
 holiness, and its inexhaustible fruitfulness in every good thing, 
 with its Catholic unity and its invincible stability, is a great and 
 perpetual motive of credibility, and an irrefutable witness of 
 its own divine mission. 
 
 And thus, like a standard set up unto the nations (Isaias xi. 12), 
 it both invites to itself those who do not yet believe, and assures 
 its children that the faith which they profess rests on the most 
 firm foundation. And its testimony is efficaciously supported 
 by a power from on high. For our most merciful Lord gives His 
 grace to stir up and to aid those who are astray, that they may 
 come to a knowledge of the truth ; and to those whom He has 
 brought out of darkness into His own admirable light He gives 
 His grace to strengthen them to persevere in that light, desert- 
 ing none who desert not Him. Therefore there is no parity 
 between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic 
 truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and of those who, led by human 
 opinions, follow a false religion ; for those who have received the 
 faith under the magisterium of the Church can uBver have any 
 just cause for changing or doubting that faith. Therefore, giving 
 thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to be 
 partakers of the lot of the Saints in light, let us not neglect 
 so great salvation, but with our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author 
 and finisher of our Faith, let us hold fast the confession of our 
 hope without wavering. (Hebr. xii. 2, and x. 23.) 
 
APPENDIX. 199 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF FAITH AND EBASON. 
 
 The Catholic Church, with one consent has also ever held 
 and does hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct 
 both in principle and also in object ; in principle, because our 
 knowledge in the one is by natural reason, and in the other by 
 divine faith ; in object, because, besides those things to which 
 natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries 
 hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, cannot be known. 
 Wherefore the Apostle, who testifies that God is known by the 
 gentiles through created things, still, when discoursing of the 
 grace 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 before the world unto our glory ; 
 which none of the princes of this world knew . . . but to us 
 God hath revealed them by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth 
 all things, yea, the deep things of God ' (1 Cor. ii. 7-9). And the 
 only-begotten Son himself gives thanks to the Father, because 
 He has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and has 
 revealed them to little ones (Matt. xi. 25). 
 
 Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, 
 piously, and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a 
 very fruitful, understanding of mysteries ; partly from the analogy 
 of those things which it naturally knows, partly from the relations 
 which the mysteries bear to one another and to the last end of 
 man ; but reason never becomes capable of apprehending mysteries 
 as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For 
 the divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the 
 created intelligence that, even when delivered by revelation and 
 received by faith, they remain covered with the veil of faith 
 itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness, so long as wo 
 are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God ; ' for we walk 
 by faith and not by sight ' (2 Cor. v. 7). 
 
 But although faith is above reason, there can never be any 
 real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God 
 who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of 
 reason on the human mind> and God cannot deny Himself, nor 
 can truth ever contradict truth. The false appeaj-ance of such a 
 contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not 
 having been understood and expounded according to the mind of ■ 
 the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for 
 
200 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every asser- 
 tion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false.* 
 Further, the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of 
 teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, 
 derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, 
 lest any should" be deceived by philosophy and vaLo. fallacy (Coloss. 
 ii. 8). Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to 
 defend, as legitimate conclusions of science, such opinions as 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 errors which put on the fallacious appearance 
 of truth. 
 
 And not only can faith and reason never be opposed to one 
 another, but they are of mutual aid one to the other ; for right 
 reason demonstrates the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by 
 its Ught, cultivates the science of things divine ; while faith frees 
 and guards reason from errors, and furnishes it with manifold 
 knowledge. So far, therefore, is the Church from opposing the 
 cultivation of human arts and sciences, that it in many ways 
 helps and promotes it. For the Church neither ignores nor 
 despises the benefits to human life which result from the arts 
 and sciences, but confesses that, as they came from God, the 
 Lord of aU science, so, if they be rightly_used, they lead to God by 
 the help of His grace. Nor does the Church forbid that each of 
 these sciences in its sphere should make use of its own principles 
 and its own method ; but, while recognising this just hberty, it 
 stands watchfully on guard, lest sciences, setting themselves 
 against the divine teaching, or transgressing their own Hmits, 
 should invade and disturb the domain of faith. 
 
 Tor the doctrine of faith which God hath revealed has not 
 been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by 
 human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to 
 the Spouse .of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. 
 Hence also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to 
 be retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared ; 
 nor is that meaning ever to be departed from, under the pretence 
 or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them. Let, then, the 
 intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of individuals 
 and of the whole Church, in. all ages and all times, increase and 
 
 » From the Bull of Pope Leo X., Apostolici regiminis, read in the Till, 
 Session of the Fifth Lateran Council, a.d. 1513. See Labbe's Councils, vol.xix. 
 p. 842, Venice, 1732 
 
APPENDIX-. 201 
 
 flourisli in abundance and vigour ; but simply in its own proper 
 kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and 
 the same sense, one and the same judgment (Vincent, of Lerins, 
 Common, n. 28). 
 
 CANONS. 
 
 I. 
 
 Of Ood, the Creator of all things. 
 
 1. If any one shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of 
 things yisible and invisible ; let him be anathema. 
 
 2. If any one shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, 
 nothing exists ; let him be anathema. 
 
 3. K any one shall say that the substance and essence of God 
 and of all things is one and the same ; let him be anathema. 
 
 4. If any one shall say that finite things, both corporeal and 
 spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the divine 
 substance ; or that the divine essence by the manifestation and 
 evolution of itself becomes all things ; or, lastly, that God is 
 universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself con- 
 stitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, 
 species and individuals ; let him be anathema. 
 
 5. If any one confess not that the world, and all things which are 
 contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their 
 whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say 
 that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by 
 a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or 
 shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God ; let him 
 be anathema. 
 
 II. 
 
 Of Bevelation. 
 
 1. If any one shall say that the One true God, our Creator and 
 Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human 
 reason through created things ; let him be anathema. 
 
 2. If any one shall say that it is impossible or inexpedient that 
 man should be taught, by divine revelation, concerning God and 
 the worship to be paid to Him ; let him be anathema. 
 
202 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 3. If any one shall say that man cannot he raised by divine 
 power to a higher than natural knowledge and perfection, but 
 can and ought, by a continuous progress, to arrive at length, of 
 himself, to the possession of all that is true and good ; let him be 
 anathema. 
 
 4. If any one shall not receive as sacred and canonical the Books 
 of Holy Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the Holy Synod 
 of Trent has enumerated them, or shall deny that they have been 
 divinely inspired ; let him be anathema. 
 
 ni. 
 
 Of Faith. 
 
 1. If any one shall say that human reason is so independent that 
 faith cannot be enjoined upon it by God ; let him be anathema. 
 
 2. If any one shall say that divine faith is not distinguished from 
 natural knowledge of God and of moral truths, and therefore that 
 it is not requisite for divine faith that revealed truth be 
 believed because of the authority of God, Who reveals it; let 
 him be anathema. 
 
 8. If any one shall say that divine revelation cannot be made 
 credible by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to be 
 moved to faith solely by the internal experience of each, or by 
 private inspiration ; let him be anathema. 
 
 4. If any one shall say that miracles are impossible, and there- 
 fore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in 
 Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fabulous or mythical ; or that 
 miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine 
 origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them ; let him bo 
 anathema. 
 
 5. If any one shall say that the assent of Christian faith is not 
 a free act, but inevitably produced by the arguments of human 
 reason ; or that the grace of God is necessary for that living 
 faith only which worketh by charity ; let him be anathema. 
 
 6. If any one shall say that the condition of the faithful, and of 
 those who have not yet attained to the only true faith, is on a par, 
 so that Catholics may have just cause for doubting, with suspended 
 assent, the faith which they have already received under ythe 
 magisterium of the Church, until they shall have obtained a 
 scientific demo.nstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ; 
 let him be anathema. 
 
APPENDIX. 203 
 
 IV. 
 
 Of Faith and lieason, 
 
 1. If any one shall say tliat in divine revelation tliere are no 
 mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines 
 of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural princi- 
 ples, by properly cultivated reason ; let him be anathema. 
 
 2. If any one shall say that human sciences are to be so freely 
 treated, that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doc- 
 trine, are to be held as true, and cannot be condemned by the 
 Church ; let him be anathema. 
 
 3. If any one shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, ac- 
 cording to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doc- 
 trines propounded by the Church different from that which the 
 Church has understood and understands ; let him be anathema. 
 
 Therefore We, fulfilling the duty of our supreme pastoral ofSce, 
 entreat, by the mercies of Jesus Christ, and, by the authority of 
 the same our God and Saviour, We command, all the faithful of 
 Christ, and especially those vfho are set over others, or are 
 charged ■with the oSice of instruction, that they earnestly and 
 diligently apply themselves to ward off, and eliminate, these 
 errors from Holy Church, and to spread the light of pure faith. 
 
 And since it is not sufficient to shun heretical pravity, unless 
 those errors also be diligently avoided which more or less nearly 
 approach it. We admonish all men of the further duty of observing 
 those constitutions and decrees by which such erroneous opinions 
 as are not here specifically enumerated, have been proscribed and 
 condemned by this Holy See. 
 
 Given at Rome in public Session solemnly held in the Vatican 
 Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
 seventy, on the twenty-fourth day of April, in the twenty-fourth 
 year of our Pontificate. 
 
 In conformity with the origi/nal. 
 
 JosErH, Bishop of 8. Polten, 
 
 Secretary of iJw Vatican Cotmcil. 
 
'204 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONS. 
 
 CONSTITVTIO DOGMATICA PRIMA DE ECCLESIA 
 CHRISTI. 
 
 PIVS EPISCOPVS SERVVS SEBVOEVM DEI SACRO 
 
 APPEOBANTE CONCILIO AD PEEPETVAM 
 
 EEI MEMOEIAM. 
 
 Pastoe aeternuset episcopus aiiimarumiiostrariim,ut ealutiferum 
 redempfcionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedificare Ecclesiam 
 decrevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei viventis fideles omnes unius 
 jidei et charitatis vinculo continerentur. Quapropter, pi-insquam 
 olarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed efc 
 pro eis, qui credituri erant per verbum eorum in ipsum, ut onmes 
 unum assent, sicut ipse Eilius et Pater unum sunt. Quemad- 
 modum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit sicut 
 ipse missus erat a Patre : ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores 
 usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit. Ut vero episco- 
 patus ipse unus et indivisus asset, et per cobaerentes sibi invioem 
 sacerdotes credentium multitudo universa in fidei et communi- 
 onis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum caateris Apostolis 
 praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis princi- 
 pium ac YisibHe fundamentum, super cuius fortitudinem aeternum 
 exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo inferenda sublimitas in 
 buius fidei firmitate consurgeret.* Et quoniam portae inferi ad 
 evertendam, si fieri posset, Ecclesiam contra eius fandamentnm 
 divinitus positum. maiori in dies odio undique insurgunt ; Nos ad 
 catboHci gregis custodiam, incolumitatem, augmentum, neces- 
 sarium esse iudicamus, sacro approbante Concilio, doctrinam de 
 institutione, perpetuitate, ac natura sacri Apostolici primatus, in 
 quo totius Ecclesiae vis ac soliditas consistit, cunctis fidebbus 
 credendam et tenendam, secundum, antiquam atque constantem 
 universalis Ecclesiae fidem, propouere, atque contraries, dominico 
 gregi adeo perniciosos errores proscribere at condemnare. 
 
 * S. Leo M. Serm. iv. (al. iii.) cap. 2, in diem Natalis sui. 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 CAPUT I. 
 
 DE APOSTOLIOI PEIMATUS IN BBATO PETEO INSTITUTIONE. 
 
 Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia, 
 primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecolesiam immediate 
 et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a 
 Christo Dom.iiio fuisse. Umj.m enim Simonem, cui iam. pridem. 
 dixerat : Tu vocaberis Oepbas,* postquam ille suam edidit 
 confessionem inquiens : Tu es Cbristus, Pilius Dei vivi, solem- 
 nibus bis verbis allocutus est Dominus : Beatus es Simon Bar- 
 lona : quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, 
 qui in coelis est: et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super 
 banc petram aedificabo Ecolesiam meam, et portae inferi non 
 praevalebunt adversus eam : et tibi dabo olaves regni coelorum : 
 et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis : 
 et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis.f 
 Atque nni Simoni Petro contulit lesus post suam resurrectionem 
 summi pastoris et reotoris iurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, 
 dicens : Pasce agnos meos : Pasce oves meas.J Huic tarn 
 manifestae sacrarum Scripturarum doctrinae, ut ab Ecclesia 
 catboKca semper intellecta est, aperte opponuntur pravae eorum 
 sententiae, qui constitutam a Cbristo Domino in sua Ecclesia 
 regiminis formam pervertentes negant, solum Petrum prae caeteris 
 Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero pro- 
 prioque iurisdictionis primatu fuisse a Cbristo ins+ructum ; aut 
 qui affirmant, eundem primatum non immediate, directeqne ipsi 
 beato Petro, sed Ecclesiae, et per banc illi ut ipsius Ecclesiae 
 ministro delatum fuisse. 
 
 Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a 
 Cbristo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium principem. et 
 totius Ecclesiae militantis visibile caput ; vel eundem bonoris 
 tantum, non autem verae propriaeque iurisdictionis primatum ab 
 eodem Domino nostro lesu Cbristo directe et immediate ac- 
 cepisse ; anatbema sit. 
 
 » loan. i. 42. t Matth. xvi. 16-19. 
 
 J loan. xxi. 15-17. 
 
206 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 CAPUT II. 
 
 DB PEEPBTUITATE PEIMATUS BEATI PETRI IN EOMANIS PONTIFICIBUS. 
 
 Quod autem in beato Apostolo Petro princeps pastorum et 
 pastor magnus ovium Do minus Cliristus lesus in perpetuam 
 salutem ac perenne bonum Ecclesiae instituit, id eodem auctore 
 in Ecclesiae, quae fundata super petram ad finem saeculormn 
 usque firma stabit, iugiter durare necesse est. Nulli sane dubium, 
 imo saeculis omnibus notum est, quod sanctus beatissimusque 
 Petrus, Apostolorum princeps et caput, fideique columna et 
 Ecclesiae catholicae fundamentum, a Domino nostro lesu Christo, 
 Salvatore humani generis ac Redemptore, claves regni accepit : 
 qui ad boc usque tempus et semper in suis sucoessoribus, epi- 
 scopis sanctae Romanae Sedis, ab ipso fundatae, eiusque conse- 
 cratae sanguine, vivet et praesidet et iudicium exercet.* Unde 
 quicumque in bac catbedra Petro succedit, is secundum Cbristi 
 ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam 
 obtinet. Manet ergo dispositio veritatis, et beatus Petrus iu 
 aocepta fortitudine petraea perseverans suscepta Ecclesiae 
 gubernacula non reliqnit.f Hac de causa ad Eomanam Ecclesiam 
 propter potentiorem principalitatem. necesse semper fuit omnem 
 convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos, qui sunt undique fideles, ut- 
 in ea Sede, e qua venerandae communionis iura in omnes 
 dimanant, tamquam membra in capite oonsociata, ia unam cor- 
 poris compagem coalescerent.J 
 
 Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Cbristi Domini institu- 
 tione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam 
 Ecclesiam babeat perpetuos successores ; aut Romanum Ponti- 
 ficem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem; 
 anatbema sit. 
 
 CAPUT III. 
 
 DB VI ET EATIONE PEIMATUS EOMANl PONTIFICIS. 
 
 Quapropter apertis innixi sacrarum litterarum testimoniis, et 
 inbaerentes turn Praedecessorum Nostrorum, Romanorum Ponti- 
 ficum, tum Conciliorumgeneralium disertis, perspicuisque decretis, 
 
 * Cf. Ephesini Concilii Act. iii. 
 t S. Leo M. Serin, iii. (al. ii.) cap. 3. 
 
 { S. Iren. Adr. Haer. 1. iii. c. 3, et Conc^ Aquilei. a. 381. inter epp. S. 
 Ambros. ep. xi. 
 
APPENDIX. 207 
 
 innovamus oecumenici Concilii Florentini definitionem, qua cre- 
 dendum ab omnibus Christi fidelibus est, sanctam Apostolicam 
 Sedem, et B;omatium Pontificem in universum brbem tenere 
 primatnm, et ipsum Pontificem Romanum successorem esse beati 
 Petri Principis Apostolorum, et verum Christi Vicarinm, totius- 
 que Ecclesiae caput, et omnium Christi anorum patrem ao dootorem 
 existere ; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi 
 universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro lesu Cbristo plenam 
 potestatena traditam esse ; quemadmodum etiam in gestis oecu- 
 menicorum Conciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur. 
 
 Docemus proinde et declaramus, Ecclesiam Romanam dis- 
 ponente Domino super omnes alias ordiuariae potestatis obtinere 
 principatum, et banc Romani Pontificis iurisdictionis potestatem, 
 quae Tere episcopalis est, immediatam esse : erga quam cuiuscnm- 
 que ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tarn seorsum singuli 
 quam simul omnes, officio hierarcbicae subordinationis, veraeque 
 obedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et 
 mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae 
 per totum orbem diffusae pertinent ; ita utcustodita cum Romano 
 Pontifice tam communionis, quam eiusdem fidei professionis 
 unitate, Ecclesia Christi sit unus grex sub uno summo pastore. 
 Haec est cathobcae veritatis doctrina, a .qua deviare salva fide 
 atque salute nemo potest. 
 
 Tantum autem abest, ut haec Summi Pontificis potestas officiat 
 ordinariae ac immediatae ilU episcopalis iurisdictionis potestati, 
 qua Episcopi, qui positi a Spiritu Sancto in Apostolorum locum 
 successerunt, tamquam veri pastores assignatos sibi greges, sin- 
 guli singulos, pasount et regunt, ut eadem a supremo et univer- 
 saH Pastore asseratur, roboretur ac vindicetur, secundum illud 
 sancti Gregorii Magni : Mens honor est honor universalis Eccle- 
 siae. Mens honor est fratrum meorum solidus vigor. Tum 
 ego vere honoratus sum, cum singulis quibusque honor debitus 
 non negatur.* 
 
 Porro ex suprema ilia Romani Pontificis potestate gubernandi 
 universam Ecclesiam ius eidem esse consequitur,in huius sui muneris 
 exercitio libere communicandi cum pastoribus et gregibus totius 
 Ecclesiae, ut iidem ab ipso in via salutis doceri ao regi possint. 
 Quare damnamus ac reprobamus illorum sententias, qui banc 
 supremi capitis cum pastoribus et gregibus communicationem 
 licite impediri posse dicunt, aut eandem reddunt saeculari potes- 
 tati obnoxiam, ita ut contendant, quae ab Apostolica Sede vel eius 
 
 * Ep. ad. Eulog. Alexandrin. 1. viii. ep. xxx. 
 
208 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 auctoritate ad regimen Ecclesiae constituuntur, vim ac valorem 
 non habere, nisi potestatis saecularis placito confirmentur. , 
 
 Et qnoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romaniis Pontifex 
 nniversae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum 
 esse iudicem siiprem.iim fideUum,* et in omnibus causis ad examen 
 ecclesiasticum spectantibus ad ipsius posse iadicium recurri ;•!■ 
 Sedis vero Apostolicae, cains auctoritate maior non est, indicium 
 a nemine fore retraotandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudi- 
 care iudicicf Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui 
 affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificum ad Oecumen- 
 icum Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice 
 superiorem appellare. 
 
 Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum. Pontificem habere tantum- 
 modo officinm inspectionis vel directionis, non antem plenam et 
 supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non 
 solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad 
 disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totnm orbem diffusae per- 
 tinent ; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam 
 plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis ; aut hanc eius potesta- 
 tem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnos ac singnlas 
 ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles ; ana- 
 thema sit. 
 
 CAPUT IV. 
 
 DE EOMANI PONTIFICIS INFALLIBILI MAGISTEEIO. 
 
 Ipso autem ApostoHco primatu, quern Romanus Pontifex tam- 
 quam Petri principis Apostolorum successor in universam Eccle- 
 siam. obtinet, suprem.amquoque magisteriipotestatem comprehendi, 
 haec Sancta Sedes semper tenuit, perpetuus Ecclesiae usus com- 
 probat, ipsaque oecumenica Concilia, ea imprimis, in quibua 
 Oriens cum Occidente in fidei charitatisque nnionem conveniebat, 
 declaraverunt. Patres enim Concilii Congtantinopohtani quarti, 
 maiorum vestigiis inhaerentes, hanc solemnem ediderunt pro- 
 fessionem : Prima salus est, rectae fidei regulam custodire. Et 
 quia non potest Domini nostri lesu Christi praetermitti sententia 
 dicentis: Tii es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam 
 meam, haec, quae dicta sunt, rerum probantnr efiectibus, quia in 
 
 * Pii PP. VI. Breve, Super soliditate. d. 28 Noy. 1786. 
 
 t Concil. Oecum. Lugdun. II. 
 
 I Ep. Nicolai 1. ad Michaelem Imperatorem. 
 
APPENDIX. 209 
 
 Sede Apostolica immaculata est semper catholica reservata religio, 
 et sancfca celebrata docfcrina. Ab huius ergo fide et doctrina 
 separari minime oupientes, speramus, ut in una commnnione, 
 quam Sedes Apostolica praedicat, esse mereamur, in qua est 
 integra et vera Christianae religionis soliditas.* Approbante 
 vero Lugdunensi Concilio secundo, Graeci professi sunt : Sanctam 
 Romanam Ecclesiam summum et plenum primatum et principa- 
 tum super universam Ecclesiam catholicam obtinere, quem se ab 
 ipso Domino in beato Petro Apostolorum principe sive vertice, 
 cuius Romanus Pontifex est successor, cum potestatis plenitudine 
 recepisse veraciter et humiliter recognoscit; et sicut prae caeteris 
 tenetur fidei veritatem defendere, sic et, si quae de fide subortae 
 fuerint quaestiones, suo debent iudicio definiri. Florentinum 
 denique Concilium definivit: PontificemRomanum, verum Christi 
 Vicarium, totiusque Ecclesiae caput et omnium Cbristianorum. 
 patrem ac doctorem existere ; et ipsi in beato Petro pascendi, 
 regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro 
 Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse. 
 
 Huic pastoraU muneri ut satisfacerent, Praedecessores Nostri 
 indefessam semper operam dederunt, ut salutaris Christi doctrina 
 apud omnes terrae populus propagaretur, parique cura vigilarunt, 
 ut, ubi recepta esset, sincera et pura conservaretur. Quocirca 
 totius orbis Antistites nunc singuli, nunc in Synodis congregati, 
 longam. ecclesiarum consuetudinem et antiquae regnlae formam 
 sequentes, ea praesertim pericula, quae in negotiis fidei emergobant, 
 ad banc Sedem Apostolicam retulerunt, ut ibi potissimum resar- 
 cirentur danma fidei, ubi fides non potest sentire defectum. f 
 Romani autem Pontifices, prout tempomm et rerum conditio 
 suadebat, nunc convocatis oecumenicis Conciliis aut explorata 
 Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae sententia, nunc per Synodos par- 
 ticulares, nunc aliis, quae divina suppeditabat providentia, 
 adhibitis auxiliis, ea tenenda definiverunt, quae sacris Scripturis 
 et apostolicis Traditionibus consentanea Deo adiutore cognoverant. 
 Neque enim Petri successoribus Spiritus Sanctus promissus est, 
 ut eo revelante novam doctrinam patefacerent, sed ut eo assistente 
 • traditam per Apostolos reyelationem sen fidei depositum sancte 
 custodirent et fideliter exponerent. Quorum quidem apostolicam 
 doctrinam omnes venerabiles Patres amplexi et sanoti Doctores 
 orthodoxi venerati atque secuti sunt ; plenissime scientes, banc 
 
 * Ex formula S. Hormisdae Papae, prout ab Hadriano II. Patribus Concilii 
 Oecumenici VIII., Coustantinopolitani IV., proposita et ab iisdem sub- 
 scripta est. ' 
 
 t Cf. S. Bern. Epist. cxe. 
 
 P 
 
210 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 sancfci Petri Sedem ab onmi semper errore iUibatam permanere, 
 Becvmdum Domini Salvatoris nostri divinam pollicitationem dis- 
 cipuloram suorum. principi factam : Ego rogavi pro te, ut non 
 deficiat fides tua, et tii aliquando conversus confirma fratres 
 tubs. 
 
 Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei numquam deficientis charisma 
 Petro eiusque in liac Cathedra successoribus divinitus coUatum 
 est, nt excelso suo nmnere in omnium salutem fangerentur, ut 
 nniversns Christi grex per eos ab erroris venenosa esca aversus, 
 coelestis doctrinae pabulo nutriretur, ut sublata schismatis occa- 
 sione Bcclesia tota una conservaretur, atque suo fandamento 
 innixa firma adversus inferi portas consisteret. 
 
 Atvero cum hac ipsa aetate, qua salutifera Apostolici muneris 
 efficacia vel maxima requiritur, non pauci inveniantur, qui illius 
 auctoritati obtrectant ; necessarium. omnino esse censemus, 
 praerogativam, quam unigenitus Dei Filius cum summo pastoraH 
 officio coniungere dignatus est, solemniter asserere. 
 
 Itaque Nos traditioni a fidei Christiajiae exordio perceptae 
 fidehter inhaerendo, ad Dei Salvatoris nostri gloriam, religionis 
 Catholicae exaltationem et Christianorum populprum salutem, 
 sacro approbante Concilio, docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma 
 esse definimus : Romanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loquitur, 
 id est, cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere 
 fangens, pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de 
 fide vel moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per 
 assistentiam divinam, ipsi in beato Petro promissam, ea infallibili- 
 tate poUere, qua diviuus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda 
 doctriaa de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit ; ideoque 
 eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex 
 consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse. 
 
 Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus 
 avertat, praesumpserit ; anathema sit. 
 
 Datum Romae, in publica Sessione in Vaticana Basilica solem- 
 niter celebrata anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo octin- 
 gentesimo septuagesimo, die deoima octava lulii. 
 
 Pontificatus Nostri anno vigesimo quinto. 
 
 Ita est. 
 
 JosEPHUs, Episcopus 8. Ippolijti, 
 
 Secretarius Ooncilii Vaticani. 
 
APPENDIX. 211 
 
 Teauslation. 
 
 FIRST DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH 
 OF CHRIST. 
 
 PUBLISHED IN THE POUETH SESSION OF THE HOLT OECUMENICAL 
 COUNCIL OP THE VATICAN. 
 
 PIUS BISHOP, SERVANT OE THE SERVANTS OE GOD, WITH THE 
 APPROVAL OF THE SACRED COUNCIL, FOR AN EVERLAST- 
 ING REMEMBRANCE. 
 
 The Eternal Pastor and Bishop of our souls, in order to continue 
 for all time tlie life-giving work of His Redemption, determined 
 to build up the Holy Church, vyherein, as in the House of the 
 living God, all who believe might be united in the bond of one 
 faith and one charity. Wherefore, before He entered into His 
 glory, He prayed unto the Father, not for the Apostles only, but 
 for those also who through their preaching should come to believe 
 in Him, that all might be one even as He the Son and the Father 
 are one.* As then ' He sent the Apostles whom He had 
 chosen to Himself from the world, as He Himself had been 
 sent by the Father : so He willed that there should ever be 
 pastors and teachers in His Church to the end of the world. 
 And in order that the Episcopate also might be one and un- 
 divided, and that by means of a closely united priesthood the 
 multitude of the faithful might be kept secure in the oneness of 
 faith and communion, He set Blessed Peter over the rest of the 
 Apostles, and fixed in him the abiding principle of this two-fold 
 unity, and its visible foundation, in the strength of which the 
 everlasting temple should arise and the Church in the firmness 
 of that faith should lift her majestic front to Heaven. f And 
 seeing that the gates of hell with daily increase of hatred are 
 gathering their strength on every side to upheave the foundation 
 laid by God's own hand,' and so, if that might be, to overthrow 
 the Church : We, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, 
 and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the 
 Sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the 
 
 * St. John xvii. 21. 
 ' t From Sermon iv. chap. ii. of St. Leo the Great, a.d. 440, vol. i. p. 17 of 
 edition of Ballerini, A'enice, 1753: read in the eighth lection on the Feast of 
 St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, February 22. 
 
 p 2 
 
212 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 belief and acceptance of all tHe faitliful, in accordance with the 
 ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine 
 touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred 
 Apostolic Primacy, in which is found the strength and solidity 
 of the entire Church, and at the same time to proscribe and con- 
 demn the contrary errors, so hurtful to the flock of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER I; 
 
 OF THE INSTITtTTIOK OP THE APOSTOLIC PEIMACT lU BLESSED PETEE. 
 
 We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony 
 of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal 
 Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given 
 to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to 
 Simon alone, to whom He had already said : Thou shalt be 
 called Cephas,* that the Lord after the confession made by him, 
 saying : Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, ad- 
 dressed these solemn words : Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jona, 
 because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my 
 Father who is in Heaven. And I say to thee that thou art 
 Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the 
 keys .of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.f And it was 
 upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection bestowed the 
 jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the 
 words : Peed my lambs : feed my sheep.;j: At open variance 
 with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever 
 understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of 
 those who, while they distort the form of government established 
 by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his single 
 person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken sepa- 
 rately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper 
 primacy of jurisdiction ; or of those who assert that the same 
 primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed 
 Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on 
 Peter as her Minister. 
 
 » St. John,!. 42. t St. Matthew xvi. 16-19. J St. John xxi. 15-17. 
 
APPENDIX. 2] 3 
 
 If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle 
 ■was not appointed the Prince of aU the Apostles and the visible 
 Head of the whole Church Militant ; or that the same directly 
 and immediately received from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ 
 a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdic- 
 tion : let him be anathema. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ON THE PEEPETTIITT OF THE PEIMACT OP BLESSED PETER IN THE 
 EOIVUN PONTIFFS. 
 
 That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the 
 sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the 
 Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting 
 good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily 
 remain unceasingly in the Church ; which, being founded upon 
 the Rock, will stand firin to the end of the world. For none 
 can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and Blessed 
 Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the 
 faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys 
 of the kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and 
 Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this 
 day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of 
 Rome, which was founded by him, and consecrated by his blood.* 
 Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the 
 institution of Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over 
 the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth 
 therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding through the 
 strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not 
 abandoned the direction of the Church.j" Wherefore it has at 
 all times been necessary that every particular Church — that is to 
 say, the faithful throughout the world — should agree with the 
 Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the 
 princedom which this has received ; that all being associated in 
 the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to 
 
 * From the Acts (session third) of the Third General Coxmcil of Ephesns, 
 A.D. 431, Labb^'s Councils, vol iii. p. 1154, Venice edition of 1728. See also 
 letter of St. Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, in life prefixed to his works, p. 13, 
 Venice, 1760. 
 
 t From Sermon iii. chap. iii. of St. Leo the Great, vol. i. p. 1 2. 
 
214 
 
 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 all, might grow together as members of one Head in the compact 
 unity of the body.* 
 
 If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ 
 the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a 
 perpetual line o/ successors in the Primacy over the Universal 
 Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Blessed 
 Peter in this primacy ; let him be anathema. 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 ON THE POWBE AKD NATUEB OP THE PRIMACY OF THE EOMAN 
 PONTIFF. 
 
 Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the Sacred Writings, 
 and adhering to the plain and express decrees both of our prede- 
 cessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, We 
 renew the definition of the CBcumenical Council of Plorence, in 
 virtue of which all the faithful of Christ must believe that the 
 Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy 
 over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor 
 of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true Vicar of 
 Christ, and Head of the whole Church, and Father and Teacher 
 of all Christians ; and that full power was given to Mm in Blessed 
 Peter to rule, feed, and govern the Universal Church by Jesus 
 Christ our Lord : as is also contained in the acts of the General 
 Councils and in the Sacred Canons. 
 
 Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our 
 Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power 
 over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the 
 Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate ; to which 
 all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both 
 individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierar- 
 chical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in 
 matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that 
 appertain to the discipline and government of the Church through- 
 out the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock 
 under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both 
 of communion and of profession of the same faith with the 
 
 * From St. Irenaeus against Heresies, book iii. cap. ill. p. 175, Benedictine 
 edition, Venice, 1734; and Acts of Synod of Aquileia, a.d. 381, LnhWa Coun- 
 cils, vol. ii. p. 1185, Venice, 1728. 
 
APPENDIX. 215 
 
 Roman Pontiff. This is tlie teaching of Catholic truth, from 
 ■which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation. 
 
 But so far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from being any 
 prejudice to the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal 
 jurisdiction, by which Bishops, who have been set by the Holy 
 Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles,* feed and 
 govern, each his own flock, as true Pastors, that this their 
 episcopal authority is really asserted, strengthened, and protected 
 by the supreme and universal Pastor ; in accordance with the 
 words of St. Gregory the Great : my honour is the honour of the 
 whole Church. My honour is the firm strength of my brethren. 
 I am truly honoured, when the honour due to each and all is not 
 withheld.f 
 
 Further, from this supreme power possessed by the Roman 
 Pontiff of governing the Universal Church, it follows that he has 
 the right of free communication with the Pastors of the whole 
 Church, and with their flocks, that these may be taught and 
 ruled by him in the way of salvation. Wherefore we condemn 
 and reject the opinions of those who hold that the communication 
 between this supreme Head and the Pastors and their flocks can 
 lawfully be impeded ; or who make this commiunication subject 
 to the will of the secular power, so as to maintain that whatever 
 is done by the Apostolic See, or by its authority, for the govern- 
 ment of the Church, cannot have force or value unless it be con- 
 firmed by the assent of the secular power. And since by the 
 divine right of Apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is placed 
 over the Universal Church, we further teach and declare that he 
 is the supreme judge of the faithful, J and that in all causes, 
 the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had 
 to his tribunal, § and that none may re-open the judgment of 
 the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, 
 nor can any lawfully review its judgment. || Wherefore they 
 err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal 
 from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an CBcumenical 
 
 (* Prom chap. iv. of xxiii. session of Council of Trent, ' Of the Ecclesiastical 
 Hierarchy.' 
 
 f Prom the letters of St. Gregory the Great, hook viii. 30, vol. ii. p. 919, 
 Benedictine edition, Paris, 1705. 
 
 I Prom a Brief of Pius VI. Super soliditate, of November 28, 1786. 
 
 § Prom the Acts of the Pourteenth General Council of Lyons, a.d. 1274. 
 Labbd's Councils, toI. xiv. p. 512, 
 
 II Prom Letter viii. of Pope Nicholas I., a.d. 858, to the Emperor Michael, in 
 Lahb^'s Councils, vol. ix. pp. 1339 and 1570. 
 
216 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman 
 Pontiff. 
 
 If then any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office 
 merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme 
 power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in 
 things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which 
 relate to the disciphue and government of the Church spread 
 , throughout the world ; or assert that he possesses merely the 
 principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power ; or 
 that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, 
 both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the 
 Pastors and the faithful ; let him be anathema. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CONCERNING THE IKFALLIBLE TEACHING OP THE ROMAN PONTIFF. 
 
 Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching, is also included in 
 the Apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor 
 of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, 
 this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the 
 Church confirms, and CEcumenical Councils also have declared, 
 especially those in which the East with the West met in the 
 union of faith and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth 
 Council of Constantinople, following in the footsteps of their 
 predecessors, gave forth this solemn profession : The first con- 
 dition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true faith. And 
 because the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed 
 by, who said : Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I wiU build 
 my Church,* these things which have been said are approved 
 by events, because in the ApostoHc See the Catholic ReKgion and 
 her holy and well-known doctrine has always been kept undefiled. 
 Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from 
 the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve 
 to be in the one communion, which the Apostolic See preaches, 
 in which is the entire and true soUdity of the Christian religion.-f 
 And, with the approval of the Second Council of Lyons, 
 
 * St. Matthew xvi. 18. 
 
 t Prom the Formula of St. Honaisdas, subscribed by the Fathers of the 
 Eighth General Council (Fourth of Conotantinople), A.». 869. LabbA's Coun- 
 cils, vol. V. pp. 583, 622. 
 
APPENDIX. 217 
 
 tte Greeks professed that the Holy Roman Church enjoys 
 supreme and full Primacy and preeminence over the whole 
 Catholic Church, which it truly and humbly acknowledges that 
 it has receired with the plenitude of power from our Lord Him- 
 self in the person of blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, 
 whose successor the Roman Pontiff is ; and as the Apostolic See 
 is bound before all others to defend the truth of faith, so also if 
 any questions regarding faith shall arise, they must be defined by . 
 its judgment.* Finally, the Council of Florence defined : f 
 That the Roman Pontiff is the true Vicar of Christ, and the 
 Head of the whole Church, and the Father and Teacher of all 
 Christians,; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by 
 our Lord Jesus Christ the fall power of feeding, ruling, and 
 governing the whole Church.^ 
 
 To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made un- 
 wearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be 
 propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal 
 care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where 
 it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, 
 now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long-established 
 custom of Churches,§ and the form of the ancient rule,|| sent 
 word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which 
 sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might 
 be most effectually repaired where the faith cannot fail.1[ And 
 the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and 
 circumstances, sometimes assembling CBcumenical Councils, or 
 asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the 
 world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other 
 helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held 
 those things which with the help of God they had recognised as 
 conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradi- 
 tions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of 
 Peter that by His revelation they might make known new 
 
 * From the Acts of the Fourteenth General Council (Second of Lyons), a.d. 
 1274. Labb^, vol. xiv. p. 512. 
 
 t From the Acts of the Seventeenth General Council of Florence, a.d. 1438. 
 Labb^, vol. xviii. p. 526. 
 
 t John xxi. 15-17. 
 
 § From a letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Pope St. Celestine I. a.d. 422, 
 vol. vi. part ii. p. 36, Paris edition of 1638. 
 
 II From a Rescript of St. Innocent I. to the Council of Milevis, a.d. 402. 
 Labb^, vol. iii. p. 47. 
 
 % From a letter of St. Bernard to Pope Innocent II. a.d. 1130. Epist. 191, 
 vol. iv. p. 433, Paris edition of 1742. 
 
218 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 doctrine, but ttat by His assistance they migbt inviolably keep 
 and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered 
 through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers 
 have embraced and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated 
 and followed their Apostolic doctriae ; knowing most fully that 
 this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error 
 according to the divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to- 
 the Prince of His disciples : I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
 fail not, and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.* 
 
 This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred 
 by Heaven upon Peter and his successors ia this Chair, that they 
 might perform their high office for 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 the whole 
 Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might 
 stand firm against the gates of hell. 
 
 But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy 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 the prerogative which the only-begotten Son 
 of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office. 
 
 Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the 
 beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our 
 Saviour, the exaltation of the CathoHc Religion, and the salvation 
 of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and 
 define that it is a dogma divinely revealed : that the Roman 
 PontifT, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge 
 of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of 
 his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctriue regarding 
 faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine 
 assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that 
 infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His 
 Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith 
 or morals : and that therefore such definitions of the Roman 
 PontiEf are irreformable t of themselves, and not from the consent 
 of the Church. 
 
 * St. Luke xxii. 32. See also the Acts of the Sixth General Council, A.D. 680. 
 Labbi, vol. vii. p. 659. 
 
 t i.e. in the words used by Pope Nicholas I. note 13, and in the Synod of 
 Quedlinburg, a,d. 1085, 'it is allowed to none to revise its judgment, and to 
 sit in judgment upon what it has judged.' LabbA, vol. xii. p. 679. 
 
APPENDIX. 219 
 
 But if anyone — which may God avert — presume to contradict 
 this Our definition ; let him be anathema. 
 
 Given at Rome in Public Session solemnly held in the Vatican 
 Basilica in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred 
 and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth 
 year of our Pontificate. 
 
 In conformity with the original. 
 
 Joseph, Bishop of 8. Polten, 
 
 Secretary to the Vatican Council. 
 
220 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 RULES LAID DOWN BY THEOLOGIANS FOR 
 DOCTRINAL DEFINITIONS. 
 
 Question. — ^What are the characters and marks whereby we 
 may know whether a proposition can be submitted to the authori- 
 tative judgment of the Catholic magisterium, or in other words, 
 whether a proposition be definable as defide ? 
 
 Answer. — In the answer distinction was made between that 
 which was sufficient in order to come to a definition, and that 
 which was not necessary for that purpose. 
 
 With respect to that which was not necessary, the following 
 four points were established unanimously. 
 
 1. It is not necessary, that antecedently there should not have 
 been a variety of opinions in the Catholic Church, and that all 
 should have agreed in that which is to be defined. 
 
 This is manifest from the ancient controversy long ago decided 
 on re-baptism, although many bishops held the opposite opinion. 
 This is also confirmed by the practice of the church, which many 
 times has permitted the profession of opposite opinions, provided 
 there has been a wilHngness to submit to any decision that might 
 be made. This practice supposes that points may be defined, 
 about which Catholics have been permitted to think and dispute 
 freely. 
 
 2. It is not necessary that no writers of authority should be 
 cited for an opinion contrary to that which is to be defined. This 
 is manifest from the history of the dogmas successively defined ; 
 and in this place it will be sufficient to observe, that the Council 
 of Trent (sess. vi. can. 23) did not hesitate to affirm as the faith 
 of the church, that the most Holy Virgin Mother of God had 
 never committed any even venial sin, although it is certain that 
 grave doctors and Fathers wrote otherwise. 
 
 3. It is not necessary to cite texts, either implicit or explicit, 
 from Holy Scripture, since it is manifest that the extent of 
 
APPENDIX. 221 
 
 revelation is greater thaii that of Holy Scripture. Thus, it has 
 been defined, for example, that even infants may and ought to be 
 baptized, that Christ our Lord is wholly contained and received 
 under one species of the most Holy Eucharist, that the Holy 
 Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one prin- 
 ciple, although theologians do not produce texts either implicit 
 or expUcit from Scripture in which such dogmas are taught. 
 
 4. Lastly, it is not necessary to have a series of fathers and 
 testimonies reaching to apostolic times,' in order to prove that 
 such a proposition belongs to apostolic tradition. With respect 
 to this, it was observed, that the assertion of Euch a necessity 
 rests upon false hypotheses, and is refated by the most palpable 
 facts. 
 
 The false hypotheses are, 
 
 a. That all doctrine preached from the beginning has been 
 committed to writing by the fathers. 
 
 6. That all the monuments of antiquity have come down 
 to us. 
 
 c. That the entire object of faith has always been distinctly 
 conceived and formally expressed ; 
 
 d. That subsequent tradition may differ from the preceding ; 
 
 e. That it cannot be legitimately concluded from the fact that 
 a doctrine is held in any age, that the same doctrine was never 
 denied by the majority, and that it was at least implicitly believed 
 by the greater number. 
 
 The facts that refute such a necessity are manifold, but it 
 suffices to mention the definition of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of the 
 Lateran Synod under Martin I. or the dogmatical letters of St. 
 Leo and St. Agatho, in which appeal is made to the faith of the 
 fathers and to tradition, and where there appears to be no anxiety 
 to produce testimonies of the first three centuries, on the contrary, 
 authors are quoted, who in those times were of recent date. 
 
 Having thus laid down by common agreement that which was 
 not necessary, they passed on to discuss what was sufficient in 
 order that an opinion should be defined as an article of faith. 
 
 The five following characters were proposed and decided upon 
 as being sufficient. 
 
 I. A certain number of grave testimonies containing the con- 
 troverted proposition. 
 
 This after thorough iliscussion was unanimously acknowledged 
 to be a sufficient character, and it was said that to deny it would 
 be going against the councils, the dogmatic bulls of pontifis, and 
 the economy of the church itself. Thus with a certain number 
 
222 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 of such testimonies referred to in the acts of the councils, it is 
 easily seen how the fathers proceeded to a definition at Ephesug 
 against Nestorius, in the sixth council against the MonotheUtes, 
 and in the seventh against the Iconoclasts. 
 
 II. One or more revealed principles in which is contained the 
 proposition in question. 
 
 Upon this also the consultors were unanimous, and they more- 
 over said that the production of such principles would be equi- 
 valent to a virtual and immediate revelation. Thus, from the 
 revealed principle that Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect 
 man, it follows as revealed that Jesus Christ has two wiUs : also, 
 in the revealed principle that God is One and the Divine Persons 
 three, and that all in God is one except where the relation of 
 origin intervenes, it is also revealed that the Holy Ghost can 
 only proceed from the Father and the Son as from one principle 
 of spiration. 
 
 III. The intimate nexus of the dogmas, or, what is the same 
 thing, that a proposition must be believed to be revealed, from the 
 denial of which the falsity of one or more articles of faith would 
 necessarily and immediately follow. 
 
 The consultors were unanimous on this point, agreeing that 
 such a character was equivalent to a virtual and immediate re- 
 velation. Thus, when it is established that some sins are mortal, 
 and that not every sin is incompatible with a state of grace, it 
 necessarily follows that the distinction between mortal and venial 
 sins is a revealed doctrine. So also from the fact that the Sac- 
 raments produce their effect ex opere operaio and that Jesus 
 Christ is the primary minister of them, it follows as virtually and 
 immediately revealed, that the effect of the Sacraments does not 
 depend upon the virtue or malice of the secondary minister. 
 
 IV. The concordant testimony of the existing episcopate. 
 The consultors with regard to this were again unanimous, and 
 
 it was said that to deny the suflEiciency of this character was to 
 contradict the promises of our Lord, and the constant practice 
 of the fathers in proving the articles of faith. Thus, Irenaeus, 
 Tertullian, Augustine, and Fulgentius, in order to put an end to 
 controversies, considered it sufficient to ascertain the faith of the 
 Sees and more especially of the chief ones. 
 
 V. The practice of the Church. 
 
 That this point would afford sufficient evidence to proceed to a 
 definition, was likewise unanimously affirmed by the consultors. 
 
APPENDIX. 223 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE CASE OF HONORIUS. 
 
 I HAVE intentionally refrained from treating the historical evi- 
 dence in the case of Honorius in the text of the fourth chapter, 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 1. Because it is sufficient to the argument of that chapter to 
 affirm that the case of Honorius is doubtful. It is in vain for 
 the antagonists of Papal Infallibility to quote this case as if it 
 were certain. Centuries of controversy have established, beyond 
 contradiction, that the accusation against Honorius cannot be 
 raised by his most ardent antagonists to more than a probabiKty. 
 And this probability, at its maximum, is less than that of his 
 defence. I therefore affirm the qtiestion to be doubtful ; which 
 is abundantly sufficient against the private judgment of his 
 accusers. The cumulus of evidence for the Infallibility of the 
 Roman Pontiff outweighs all such doubts. 
 
 2. Because the argument of the fourth chapter necessarily ex- 
 cludes all discussion of detailed facts. Had they been introduced 
 into the text, our antagonists would have evaded the point, and 
 confused the argument by a discussion of details. I will, never- 
 theless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of 
 Honorius can be abundantly proved from documents : 
 
 (1) That Honorius defined no doctrine whatsoever. (2) That 
 he forbade the making of any new definition. (3) That his 
 fault was precisely in this omission of Apostolic authority, for 
 which he was justly censured. (4) That his two epistles are 
 entirely orthodox ; though, in the use of language, he wrote as 
 was- usual before the condemnation of MonotheUtism, and not as 
 it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an 
 injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, 
 as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been 
 made. 
 
 To this I add the following excellent passage from the recent 
 Pastoral of the Archbishop of Baltimore : 
 
224 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 ' The case of Honorius forms no exception; for 1st, Honorius 
 expressly says in Lis letters to Sergius, that he meant to define 
 nothing, and he was condemned precisely because he temporized 
 and would not , define ; 2nd, because in his letters he clearly 
 taught the sound Catholic doctrine, only enjoining silence as to 
 the use of certain terms, then new in the Church ; and 3rd, 
 because his letters were not addressed to a general council of the 
 whole Church, and were rather private, than public and official ; 
 at least they were not published, even in the Bast, until several 
 years later. The first letter was written to Sergius in 633, and 
 eight years afterwards, in 641, the Emperor Heraclius, in excul- 
 pating himself to Pope John II., Honorius' successor, for having 
 published his edict — the Ucthesis — ^which enjoined silence on the 
 disputants, similar to that imposed by Honorius, lays the whole 
 responsibility thereof on Sergius, who, he declares, composed the 
 edict. Evidently, Sergius had not communicated the letter to 
 the Emperor, probably because its contents, if published, would 
 not have suited his wily purpose of secretly introducing, under 
 another form, the Eutychian heresy. Thus falls to the ground 
 the only case upon which the opponents of Infallibility have 
 continued to insist. This entire subject has been exhausted by 
 many recent learned writers.' 
 
 On the question of Vigilius, see Cardinal Orsi De irreform- 
 ahili Motn. Pont, in definiendis fidei contrdversiis judicio, tom. i. p. i. 
 capp. 19, 20 ; Jeremias a Benetti's Privileg. 8. Petri vindic. p. 
 ii. tom. V. art. 12, p. 397, ed. Roman. 1759 ; Ballerini De vi et 
 ratione primatus, cap. 15 ; Lud..Thomassin, Bisp. xix. in Goncil.; 
 Petr. De Marca Diss, de Vigilio ; Vincenzi in S. Gregorii Nyss. et 
 Origenis scripta cum App. de actis Synodi V. tom. iv. and v. 
 
 On the question of Honorius, amongst older writers : los. 
 Biner S. J. in jlyparaiw eruditionis, p. iii. iv. andxi. ; Orsi, op. cit. 
 capp. 21-28 ; Bellarm. De JJom. Pontif. liv. iv.; Thomassin, op. 
 cit. diss. XX. ; Natalis Alex. Hist. Eccles. Saec. VII. diss. 2. ; Zaccaria 
 Antifebrom. p. ii. Ub. iv. Amongst later authors, see Oimlta 
 cattolica, ann. 1864, ser. v. vol. xi. and xii. ; Sohneeman, Studia 
 in qu. de Sonorio ; los. Pennachi de HonorU I. Bomani Pontifieis 
 causa in Conailio VI. 
 
APPENDIX. 2 '2 5 
 
 VII. 
 
 PASTORAL OF THE GERMAN BISHOPS 
 ASSEMBLED AT FULDA. 
 
 ' The Tindersigned Bishops to tte reverend clergy and faithful, 
 greeting, and peace in the Lord. 
 
 ' Having returned to our respective Dioceses from the Holy 
 Oilcumenical Council of the Vatican, we, in union with other 
 German Bishops who were prevented attending the Council, con- 
 sider it our duty as your chief pastors to address to you, dearly 
 beloved in the Lord, a few words of instruction and exhortation. 
 The occasion and reason for our doing so, and that unitedly and 
 solemnly, is found in the fact that many erroneous ideas have for 
 several months been disseminated, and stiU, without any authority, 
 are striving in many places to gain acceptance^ 
 
 ' In order, then, to maintain the divine truths which Christ our 
 Lord hath taught mankind in their entire purity, and to secure 
 them from all change and distortion. He has established in 
 His Holy Church the ofBce of infallible teaching, and has promised 
 and also given to it His protection and the assistance of the Holy 
 Ghost for all times. On this office of infallible teaching of the 
 Church reposes entire the security and joy of our faith. 
 
 ' As often as in the course of time misunderstandings of, or 
 oppositions to, individual points of teaching have sprung up, this 
 office of infallible teaching has in various ways, at one time in 
 greater Councils, at another without them, both exposed and 
 foiled the errors, and declared and established the truth. This 
 has been done in the most solemn manner by the General 
 Councils, that is, by those great assemblies in which the Head and 
 the m.embers of the one teaching body of the Church combined 
 for the deciding of the doubts and controversies in matters of 
 faith which then prevailed. 
 
 ' These decisions, according to the unanimous and undoubted 
 tradition of the Church, have always been held to be preserved 
 from error by a supernatural and divine assistance. Hence the 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 faithful in all tiiaes have submitted themselves to these decisions 
 as to the infallible expressions of the Holy Ghost Himself, and, 
 with undoTibting faith, have held them to be true. They have 
 done so, not, as persons might suppose, because the Bishops 
 were men of mature and extended experience, not because 
 many of them were versed in all sciences, not because they had 
 come together from all parts of the world, and therefore, in a 
 certain sense. Drought together the human knowledge of the 
 whole earth ; not, lastly, because through a long Hfe they had 
 studied and taught the Word of God, and hence were trust- 
 worthy witnesses of its meaning. All this indeed gives to their 
 declarations a very high, indeed perhaps the highest possible, 
 degree of mere human ' trustworthiness. Still this is not a 
 sufiELcient ground on which to rest supernatural faith. For this 
 act, in its last resort, rests not on the testimony of men, even 
 when they are most worthy of confidence, and even if the whole 
 human race by the voice of its best and most noble representa- 
 tives should bear witness to it ; but such an act always rests 
 wholly and alone on the truth of God Himself. When therefore 
 the children of the Church receive with faith the decrees of a 
 General Council, they do it with a conviction that God the 
 Eternal and alone of Himself Infallible Truth co-operates with 
 it in a supernatural manner, and preserves it from error. 
 
 ' Such a General Council is the present, one which our Holy 
 Father Pius IX., as you know, convoked in Rome, and to which 
 the successors of the Apostles, in larger numbers than ever before, 
 have hastened from all parts of the world, that they might, with 
 the successor of St. Peter and under his guidance, consult for the 
 present urgent interests of the Church. After many and serious 
 debates the Holy Father, in virtue of his Apostolical authority as 
 teacher, on April 24 and July 18 of this year, with the consent of 
 the holy Coimcil, solemnly published several decrees relating to 
 the true doctrine about faith, the Church, and its supreme 
 head. 
 
 ' By this means, then, the infallible teaching authority of the 
 Church has decreed, and the Holy Ghost by the vicar of Christ 
 and the Episcopate united with him has spoken : and therefore 
 all, whether Bishops, priests or laymen, are bound to receive their 
 decrees as divinely revealed truths, and with joyful hearts lay 
 hold of them and confess the same, if they wish to be and remain 
 true members of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
 When, then, beloved in the Lord, objections are raised, and you 
 hear it maintained that the Vatican Council is no true General 
 
APPENDIX. 227 
 
 Council, and that its decisions are of no authority, do not allow 
 yourselves to be led astray thereby, so as to falter in your de- 
 votion to the Church and in your belief and acceptance of its 
 decrees ; for such objections are wholly unfounded. 
 
 ' Bound together in the unity of faith and love with the Pope, 
 have the assembled Bishops, both those who in Christian lands 
 administer well-established sees, and also those who are called to 
 extend the Kingdom of God among the heathen in apostolic 
 poverty, Bishops, whether they tend a larger or a smaller flock — 
 these, as legitimate successors of the Apostles, have all with the 
 same right taken part in the Council and maturely considered 
 everything. 
 
 ' As long as the discussions lasted, the Bishops, as their con- 
 sciences demanded, and as became their office, expressed their 
 views plainly and openly, and with all necessary freedom ; and, as 
 was only to be expected in an assembly of nearly 800 Fathers, many 
 differences of opinion were manifested. These differences of 
 opinion can in no way affect the authority of the decrees them- 
 selves ; should even we not take into consideration the fact, that 
 ahnost the entire body of the Bishops who, at the time of the 
 Public Session, still maintained an opposite opinion, abstained in 
 the said Session from expressing dissent. 
 
 ' However, to maintain that either the one or the other of the 
 doctrines decided by the General Council are not contained in the 
 Holy Scripture, and in tradition of the Church — those two sources 
 of the Catholic faith — or that they are even in opposition to the 
 same, is a first step, irreconcilable with the primary principles 
 of the Catholic Church, which leads to separation from her com- 
 munion. Wherefore, we hereby declare that the present Vatican 
 Council is a legitimate General Council ; and, moreover, that this 
 Council as Uttle as any other General Council, has propounded or 
 formed a new doctrine at variance with the ancient teaching ; 
 but that it has simply developed and thrown light upon the old 
 and faithfully-preserved truth contained in the deposit of faith, 
 and in opposition to the errors of the day has proposed it 
 expressly to the belief of all the faithful; and, lastly, that 
 these decrees have received a binding power on all the faithful 
 by the fact of their final publication by the Supreme Head of 
 the Church in solemn form at the Public Session. 
 
 'While, then, we ourselves with full and unhesitating faith 
 adhere to the decrees of the Council, we exhort you as your 
 divinely appointed pastors and teachers, and beseech you in love 
 to your souls, to give no ear to any teaching contrary to this. 
 
•2 2-8 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 whencesoever it may come. Cling all the more tinwaveringly, 
 in tinion so with your Bishops, to the teaching and faith of the 
 Catholic Church ; let nothing separate you from the Rock on 
 which Jesus Christ has founded His Church, with the promise 
 that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." In view of 
 the excitement which exists in consequence of un-ecclesiastical 
 manifestations and movements against the decrees of the Council in 
 several places, and which undoubtedly forms no small trial and 
 danger to many souls, as well as considering the tremendous 
 war which has heen forced upon our German Fatherland, and 
 which claims at the same time our intense interest and watch- 
 fulness, and which has already plunged innumerable families 
 into sorrow and mourning, we cannot forbear from earnestly 
 calling all the faithful to fervent prayer for the present great 
 necessities of Church and State. Lift up, then, your hearts in 
 faith and confidence to our Father in Heaven, "Whose wise and 
 loving Providence guides and rules everything, and whose Divine 
 Son has promised most surely to hear us when we ask in His 
 name. 
 
 ' Pray also with faith and trust that this sanguinary war, by a 
 complete triumph of the right cause, and a true and lasting peace, 
 may quickly end. Pray for the wants of Holy Church, especially 
 for all who err or hesitate in their faith, that they may have the 
 grace of a firm, decided, and living faith. Pray for the Supreme 
 Head of the Church, the holy Father, who most Ukely at this 
 very moment is more than ever before in distress and embarrass- 
 ment. Pray with confidence in the merits and infinite love of 
 the Divine Heart of Jesus Christ, invoking the powerful inter- 
 cession of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God. 
 
 ' And may the blessing of God Almighty descend upon you and 
 remain with you all, in. the name of the Father and of the Son 
 and of the Holy Ghost. — Amen. 
 
 ' At the end of August, 1870. 
 
 * Geegoet, Archbishop of Miinich. 
 
 * Paul, Archbishop of Cologne. 
 
 * Petee Joseph, Bishop of Limburg. 
 
 * Cheistophee Floebntitjs, Bishop of Fulda. 
 
 * William Emmanuel, Bishop of Mayence. 
 
 * Edwaed Jambs, Bishop of Hildesheim. 
 
 * CoNEAD, Bishop of Paderborn. 
 
 * John, Bishop of Kulm. 
 
 * Ignatius, Bishop of Ratisbon. 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 ^ Panceatitjs, Bishop of AugsbiiTg. 
 
 * Francis Leopold, Bishop of Eichstadt. 
 « Matthias, Bishop of Treves. 
 
 * Philip, Bishop of Ermland. 
 
 * LoTHAiE, Bishop of Leuka m partihus, Admiaistrator of 
 
 the Archbishopric of Friburg. 
 
 * Adolphus, Bishop of AgathonopoUam^arfo'ftMS, Chaplain in 
 
 Chief of the Forces. 
 
 * Beenaed Beinkmann, Vicar-Capitular and Bishop Elect of 
 
 Miinster. 
 Conead Reitha, Bishop Elect of Speyer.' 
 
 lONDOW : PKINTKD Br 
 
 BPOTTISWOODK AKD CO., HBW-STHEET SQUABQ 
 
 AND PABLIAMENT STREET 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 IN THEIR BEARING ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLEGIANCE : 
 
 A POLITICAL EXPOSTULATION. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MUEEAY, ALBEMAELE STEEET. 
 
 1874. 
 
 The right of Translation is i'eserved. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 FEINTED BY -WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, 
 
 STAMrOKD STREET AND CHAKISG CROSS. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAOE 
 
 I. The Occasion and Scope of this Tract. Four 
 
 Propositions. Are they True ? , 5 
 
 II. The First and Fourth Peopositions. (1) " That 
 Rome has substituted for the proud boast of 
 semper eadem a policy of violence and change in 
 faith." (4) " That she has equally repudiated 
 modem thought and ancient history." . . . . 12 
 
 III. The Second Proposition — " That she has re- 
 
 furbished, and paraded anew, every rusty tool 
 she was thought to have disused." 1.5 
 
 IV. The Third Proposition — " That Eome requires 
 
 a convert, who now joins her, to forfeit his moral 
 and mental freedom, and to place his loyalty 
 and civil duty at the mercy of another." . . . . 21 
 
 V. Being True, are the Propositions Material? 45 
 
 VI. Being True and Material, were the Pro- 
 positions PROPER TO BE SET FORTH BY THE 
 
 PRESENT Writer ? 55 
 
 VII. On the Home Policy of the Future ? . . . . 60 
 Appendices t)7 
 
 B 2 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 IN THEIK BEAKING ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLEaiANOE. 
 
 I. The Occasion and Scope op this Tract. 
 
 In the prosecution of a purpose not polemical but 
 pacific, I have been led to employ words which belong, 
 more or less, to the region of" religious controversy ; 
 and which, though they were themselves few, seem to 
 require, from the various feelings they have aroused, 
 that I should carefully define, elucidate, and defend 
 them. The task is not of a kind agreeable to me ; 
 but I proceed to perform it. 
 
 Among the causes, which have tended to disturb 
 and perplex the public mind in the consideration of 
 our own religious difficulties, one has been a certain 
 alarm at the aggressive activity and imagined growth 
 of the Roman Church in this country. All are aware 
 of our susceptibility on this side ; and it was not, I 
 think, improper for one who desires to remove every- 
 thing that can interfere with a calm and judicial 
 temper, and who believes the alarm to be groundless. 
 
b I'HE VATICAN DECEEES 
 
 to state, pointedly though briefly, some reasons for 
 that belief. 
 
 Accordingly I did not scruple to use the following 
 language, in a paper inserted in the number of the 
 ' Contemporary Eeview ' for the month of October. 
 I was speaking of " the question whether a handful 
 of the clergy are or are not engaged in an utterly 
 hopeless and visionary effort to Romanise the Church 
 and people of England." 
 
 " At no time since the bloody reign of Mary has 
 such a scheme been possible. But if it had been 
 possible in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, it 
 would still have become impossible in the nineteenth : 
 when Rome has substituted for the proud boast of 
 semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith ; 
 when she has refurbished, and paraded anew, every 
 rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused ; 
 when no one can become her convert without re- 
 nouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing 
 his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another; 
 and when she has equally repudiated modern thought 
 and ancient history."* 
 
 Had I been, when I wrote this passage, as I now 
 am, addressing myself in considerable measure to my 
 Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, I should have 
 striven to avoid the seeming roughness of some of 
 these expressions ; but as the question is now about 
 
 ' Contemporary Eeview,' Oct. 1874, p. 674. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIA^'CE. 7 
 
 their substance, from whicli I am not in any particular 
 disposed to recede, any attempt to recast their general 
 form would probably mislead. I proceed, then, to 
 deal with them on their merits. 
 
 More than one friend of mine, among those who 
 have been led to join the Eoman Catholic commu- 
 nion, has made this passage the subject, more or less, 
 of expostulation. Now, in my opinion, the assertions 
 which it makes are, as coming from a layman who 
 has spent most and the best years of his life in the 
 observation and practice of politics, not aggressive 
 but defensive. 
 
 It is neither the abettors of the Papal Chair, nor 
 any one who, however far from being an abettor of 
 the Papal Chair, actually writes from a Papal point 
 of view, that bas a right to remonstrate with the world 
 at large ; but it is the world at large, on the contrary, 
 that has the fullest right to remonstrate, first with 
 His Holiness, secondly with those who share his 
 proceedings, thirdly even with such as passively 
 allow and accept them. 
 
 I therefore, as one of the world at large, propose to 
 expostulate in my turn. I shall strive to show to such 
 of my Eoman Catholic fellow-subjects as may kindly 
 give me a hearing that, after the singular steps 
 which the authorities of their Church have in these 
 last years thought fit to take, the people of this 
 country, who fully believe in their loyalty, are 
 entitled, on purely civil grounds, to expect from them 
 
8 XHE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 some declaration or manifestation of opinion, in reply 
 to that ecclesiastical party in their Ohurcli who have 
 laid down, in their name, principles adverse to the 
 purity and integrity of civil allegiance. 
 
 Undoubtedly my allegations are of great breadth. 
 Such broad allegations require a broad and a deep 
 foundation. The first question which they raise is, 
 Are they, as to the material part of them, true? But 
 even their truth might not suffice to show that their 
 publication was opportune. The second question, 
 then, which they raise is. Are they, for any practical 
 purpose, material ? And there is yet a third, though 
 a minor, question, which arises out of the propositions 
 in connection with their authorship, "Were they suit- 
 able to be set forth by the present writer ? 
 
 To these three questions I will now set myself to 
 reply. And the matter of my reply will, as I con- 
 ceive, constitute and convey an appeal to the under- 
 standings of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, 
 which I trust that, at the least, some among them may 
 deem not altogether unworthy of their consideration. 
 
 From the language used by some of the organs of 
 Roman Catholic opinion, it is, I am afraid, plain that 
 in some quarters they have given deep offence. Dis- 
 pleasure, indignation, even fury, might be said to 
 mark the language which in the heat of the moment 
 has been expressed here and there. They have been 
 hastily treated as an attack made upon Roman Catho- 
 lics generally, nay, as an insult offered them. It is 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 9 
 
 obvious to reply, that of Roman Catholics generally 
 they state nothing. Together with a reference to 
 " converts," of which I shall say more, they constitute 
 generally a free and strong animadversion on the 
 conduct of the Papal Chair, and of its advisers and 
 abettors. If I am told that he who animadverts 
 upon these assails thereby, or insults, Roman Catholics 
 at large, who do not choose their ecclesiastical rulers, 
 and are not recognised as having any voice in the 
 government of their Church, I cannot be bound by or 
 accept a proposition which seems to me to be so little 
 in accordance with reason. 
 
 Before all things, however, I should desire it to be 
 understood that, in the remarks now offered, I desire 
 to eschew not only religious bigotry, but likewise 
 theological controversy. Indeed, with theology, ex- 
 cept in its civil bearing, with theology as such, I 
 have here nothing whatever to do. But it is the 
 peculiarity of Roman theology that, by thrusting itself 
 into the temporal domain, it naturally, and even neces- 
 sarily, comes to be a frequent theme of political 
 discussion. To quiet-minded Roman Catholics, it must 
 be a subject of infinite annoyance, that their religion 
 is, on this ground more than any other, the subject 
 of criticism ; more than any other, the occasion of 
 conflicts with the State and of civil disquietude. 
 I feel sincerely how much hardship their case entails. 
 But this hardship is brought upon them altogether 
 by the conduct of the authorities of their own Church. 
 
10 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 Why did theology enter so largely into the debates 
 of Parliament on Roman Catholic Emancipation ? 
 Certainly not because our statesmen and debaters of 
 fifty years ago had an abstract love of such contro- 
 versies, but because it was extensively believed that 
 the Pope of Rome had been and was a trespasser upon 
 ground which belonged to the civil authority, and that 
 he affected to determine by spiritual prerogative ques- 
 tions of the civil sphere. This fact, if fact it be, and 
 not the truth or falsehood^ the reasonableness or 
 unreasonableness, of any article of purely religious 
 belief, is the whole and sole cause of the mischief. 
 To this fact, and to this fact alone, my language 
 is referable : but for this fact, it would have been 
 neither my duty nor my desire to use it. All other 
 Christian bodies are content with freedom in their 
 own religious domain. Orientals, Lutherans, Cal- 
 vinists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Nonconformists, 
 one and all, in the present day, contentedly and 
 thankfully accept the benefits of civil order ; never 
 pretend that the State is not its own master ; maki' 
 no religious claims to temporal possessions or advan- 
 tages ; and, consequently, never are in perilous col- 
 lision with the State. Nay more, even so I believe 
 it is with the mass of Roman Catholics individually. 
 But not so with the leaders of their Church, or with 
 those who take pride in following the leaders. 
 Indeed, this has been made matter of boast : — 
 
 " There is not another Church so called " (than the Eoman), 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 11 
 
 " nor any community professing to be a Church, which does not 
 submit, or obey, or hold its peace, when the civil governors of 
 the world command." — ' The Present Crisis of the Holy See,' 
 by H. E. Manning, D.D. London, 1861, p. 75. 
 
 The Eome of the Middle Ages claimed universal 
 monarchy. The modern Church of Rome has 
 abandoned nothing, retracted nothing. Is that all ? 
 Far from it. By condemning (as will be seen) those 
 who, like Bishop Doyle in 1826,* charge the medi- 
 aeval Popes with aggression, she unconditionally, 
 even if covertly, maintains what the mediaeval 
 Popes maintained. But even this is not the worst. 
 The worst by far is that whereas, in the national 
 Churches and communities of the Middle Ages, 
 there was a brisk, vigorous, and constant opposition 
 to these outrageous claims, an opposition which 
 stoutly asserted its own orthodoxy, which always 
 caused itself to be respected, and which even some- 
 times gained the upper hand ; now, in this nine- 
 teenth century of ours, and while it is growing old, 
 this same opposition has been put out of court, and 
 judicially extinguished within the Papal Church, 
 by the recent decrees of the Vatican. And it is 
 impossible for persons accepting those decrees justly 
 to complain, when such documents are subjected in 
 good faith to a strict examination as respects their 
 compatibility with civil right and the obedience of 
 subjects. 
 
 \ 
 * Lords' Committee, March ] 8, 1B26. Eeport, p. 190. 
 
12 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 In defending my language, I shall carefully mark its 
 limits. But all defence is reassertion, wHch properly 
 requires a deliberate reconsideration ; and no man 
 who thus reconsiders should scruple, if he find so 
 much as a word that may convey a false impression, 
 to amend it. Exactness in stating truth according 
 to the measure of our intelligence, is an indispensable 
 condition of justice, and of a title to be heard. 
 
 My propositions, then, as they stood, are these : — 
 
 1. That "^ Eome has substituted for the proud 
 boast of semper eadem, a policy of violence and change 
 in faith." 
 
 2. That she has refurbished and paraded anew 
 every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have 
 disused. 
 
 3. That no one can now become her convert with- 
 out renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and 
 placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of 
 another. 
 
 4. That she (" Rome ") has equally repudiated 
 modern thought and ancient history. 
 
 II. The First and the Fourth Propositions. 
 
 Of the first and fourth of these propositions I shall 
 dispose rather summarily, as they appear to belong 
 to the theological domain. They refer to a fact, and 
 they record an opinion. One fact to which they 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 13 
 
 refer is this : that, in days within my memory, the 
 constant, favourite, and imposing argument of Roman 
 controversialists was the unbroken and absolute 
 identity in belief of the Roman Church from the 
 days of our Saviour until now. No one, vs^ho has at 
 all followed the course of this literature during the 
 last forty years, can fail to be sensible of the change 
 in its present tenour. More and more have the 
 assertions of continuous uniformity of doctrine re- 
 ceded into scarcely penetrable shadow. More and 
 more have another series of assertions, of a living 
 authority, ever ready to open, adopt, and shape 
 Christian doctrine according to the times, taken their 
 place. Without discussing the abstract compatibility 
 of these lines of argument, I note two of the immense 
 practical differences between them. In the first, the 
 ofSce claimed by the Church is principally that of a wit- 
 ness to facts ; in the second, principally that of a judge, 
 if not a revealer, of doctrine. In the first, the processes 
 which the Church undertakes are subject to a con- 
 stant challenge and appeal to history ; in the second, 
 no amount of historical testimony can avail against 
 the unmeasured power of the theory of develop- 
 ment. Most important, most pregnant considera- 
 tions, these, at least for two classes of persons: for 
 those who think that exaggerated doctrines of Church 
 power are among the real and serious dangers of the 
 age ; and for those who think that against all forms, 
 both of superstition and of unbelief, one main 23ve- 
 
14 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 servative is to be found in maintaining the truth and 
 authority of history, and the inestimable value of the 
 historic spirit. 
 
 So much for the fact; as for the opinion, that the 
 recent Papal decrees are at war with modern thought, 
 and that, purporting to enlarge the necessary creed 
 of Christendom, they involve a violent breach with 
 history, this is a matter unfit for me to discuss, as it 
 is a question of Divinity ; but not unfit for me to 
 have mentioned in my article ; since the opinion 
 given there is the opinion of those with whom I was 
 endeavouring to reason, namely, the great majority 
 of the British public. 
 
 If it is thought that the word violence was open to 
 exception, I regret 1 cannotgive it up. The justifi- 
 cation of the ancient definitions of the Church, which 
 have endured the storms of 1500 years, was to be 
 found in this, that they were not arbitrary or wilful, 
 but that they wholly sprang from, and related to 
 theories rampant at the time, and regarded as 
 menacing to Christian belief. Even the Canons of 
 the Council of Trent have in the main this amount, 
 apart from their matter, of presumptive warrant. 
 But the decrees of the present perilous Pontificate 
 have been passed to favour and precipitate prevailing 
 currents of opinion in the ecclesiastical world of 
 Rome. The growth of what is often termed among 
 Protestants Mariolatry, and of belief in Papal Infal- 
 libility, was notoriously advancing, but it seems not 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 15 
 
 fast enough to satisfy the dominant party. To aim 
 the deadly blows of 1854* and 1870 at the old 
 historic, scientific, and moderate school, was surely 
 an act of violence ; and with this censure the pro- 
 ceeding of 18Y0 has actually been visited by the first 
 living theologian now within the Roman Communion, 
 I mean. Dr. John Henry Newman ; who has used 
 these significant words, among others : " Why should 
 an aggressive and insolent faction be allowed to make 
 the heart of the just sad, whom the Lord hath not 
 made sorrowful ?" f 
 
 III. The Second Proposition. 
 
 I take next my second Proposition : that Rome has 
 refurbished, and paraded anew, every rusty tool she 
 was fondly thought to have disused. 
 
 Is this then a fact, or is it not ? 
 
 I must assume that it is denied ; and therefore I 
 cannot wholly pass by the work of proof. But I will 
 state in the fewest possible words, and with refer- 
 ences, a few propositions, all the holders of which have 
 been condemned by the See of Rome during my own 
 generation, and especially within the last twelve or 
 fifteen years. And, in order that I may do nothing 
 towards importing passion into what is matter of 
 
 * Decree of tlie Immaculate Conception. 
 
 f See the remarkable Letter of Dr. Newman to Bishop UUa- 
 thorne, in the ' Guardian ' of April 6. 1870. 
 
16 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 pure argument, I will avoid citing any of the fear- 
 fully energetic epithets in which the condemnations 
 are sometimes clothed. 
 
 1. Those who maintain the Liberty of the Press. 
 Encyclical Letter of Pope Grregory XVI., in 1831 : 
 and of Pope Pius IX.^ in 1864. 
 
 2. Or the liberty of conscience and of worship. 
 Encyclical of Pius IX., December 8, 1864. 
 
 3. Or the liberty of speech. ' Syllabus' of March 18, 
 1861. Prop. Ixxix. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX., 
 December 8, 1864. 
 
 4. Or who contend that Papal judgments and 
 decrees may, without sin, be disobeyed, or differed 
 from, unless they treat of the rules {dogmata) of 
 faith or morals. Ibid. 
 
 5. Or who assign to the State the power of defining 
 the civil rights (jura) and province of the Church. 
 ' Syllabus' of Pope Pius IX., March 8, 1861. Ibid. 
 Prop, xix, 
 
 6. Or who hold that Roman Pontiffs and Ecu- 
 menical Councils have transgressed the limits of 
 their power, and usurped the rights of princes. Ibid, 
 Prop, xxiii. 
 
 {It must be borne in mind, that " Ecumenical Coun- 
 cils" here mean Roman Councils, not recognised by 
 the rest of the Church. The Councils of the early 
 Church did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil 
 power^ 
 
 7. Or that the Church may not employ force. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 17 
 
 {Ecclesia vis inferendce potestatem non habet.) ' Syl- 
 labus,' Prop. xxiv. 
 
 8. Or that power, not inherent in the office of the 
 Episcopate, but granted to it by the civil authority, 
 may be withdrawn from it at the discretion of that 
 authority. Ibid. Prop. xxv. 
 
 9. Or that the (immunitas) civil immunity of the 
 Church and its ministers, depends upon civil right. 
 Ibid. Prop. XXX. 
 
 10. Or that in the conflict of laws civil and 
 ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail. Ibid. 
 Prop. xlii. 
 
 11. Or that any method of instruction of youth, 
 solely secular, may be approved. Ibid. Prop, xlviii, 
 
 12. Or that knowledge of things philosophical and 
 civil, may and should decline to be guided by Divine 
 and Ecclesiastical authority. Ibid. Prop. Ivii. 
 
 13. Or that marriage is not in its essence a Sacra- 
 ment. Ibid. Prop. Ixvi. 
 
 14 Or that marriage, not sacramen tally contracted, 
 {si sacramentum excludatur) has a binding force. Ibid, 
 Prop. Ixxiii. 
 
 15. Or that the abolition of the Temporal Power 
 of the Popedom would be highly advantageous to the 
 Church. Ibid. Prop. Ixxvi. Also Ixx. 
 
 16. Or that any other religion than the Roman 
 religion may be established by a State. Ibid. Prop. 
 Ixxvii. 
 
 17. Or that in " Countries called Catholic," the 
 
 C 
 
18 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 free exercise of other religions may laudably be 
 allowed, ' Syllabus/ Prop. Ixxviii. 
 
 18. Or that the Roman Pontiff ought to come 
 to terms with progress, liberalism, and modern civili- 
 zation. Ibid. Prop. Ixxx. * 
 
 This list is now perhaps suflSciently extended, al- 
 though I have as yet not touched the decrees of 1870. 
 But, before quitting it, I must offer three observations 
 on what it contains. 
 
 Firstly. I do not place all the Propositions in one 
 and the same category ; for there are a portion of 
 them which, as far as I can judge, might, by the 
 combined aid of favourable construction and vigorous 
 explanation, be brought within bounds. And I hold 
 that favourable construction of the terms used in 
 controversies is the right general rule. But this can 
 only be so, when construction is an open question. 
 When the author of certain propositions claims, as in * 
 the case before us, a sole and unlimited power to 
 interpret them in such manner and. by such rules as 
 he may ft'om time to time think fit, the only defence 
 for all others concerned is at once to judge for them- 
 selves, how much of unreason or of mischief the words, 
 naturally understood, may contain. 
 
 Secondly. It may appear, upon a hasty perusal, 
 that neither the infliction of penalty in life, limb. 
 
 * For the original passages from the Encyclical and Syllabus 
 of Pius IX., see Appendix A. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 19 
 
 liberty, or goods, on disobedient members of the 
 Christian Church, nor the title to depose sovereigns, 
 and release subjects from their allegiance, with all its 
 revolting consequences, has been here reaffirmed. In 
 termsj there is no mention of them ; but in the sub- 
 stance of the propositions, I grieve to say, they are 
 beyond doubt included. For it is notorious that they 
 have been declared and decreed by " Rome," that is 
 to say by Popes and Papal Councils ; and the stringent 
 condemnations of the Syllabus include all those who 
 hold that Popes and Papal Councils (declared ecumeni- 
 cal) have transgressed the just limits of their power, 
 or usurped the rights of princes. What have been 
 their opinions and decrees about persecution I need 
 hardly say ; and indeed the right to employ physical 
 force is even here undisguisedly claimed (No. 7). 
 
 Even while I am writing, I am reminded, from an 
 unquestionable source, of the words of Pope Pius IX. 
 himself on the deposing power. I add only a few 
 italics ; the words appear as given in a translation, 
 without the original : — 
 
 " The present Pontiff used these words in replying to tiie 
 address from the Academia of the Catholic Eeligion (July 21, 
 1873) :— 
 
 " ' There are many errors regarding the Infallibility : but the 
 most malicious of all is that which includes, in that dogma, the 
 right of deposing sovereigns, and declaring the people no longer 
 bound by the obligation of fidelity. This right has now and 
 again, in critical circumstances, been exercised by the Pontiffs : 
 but it has nothing to do with Papal Infallibilitj'. Its origin was 
 not the infallibility, but the authority of the Pope. This 
 
 c 2 
 
iiO THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 authority, in accordance with public right, which was then 
 vigorous, and with the acquiescence of all Christian nations, who 
 reverenced in the Pope the supreme Judge of the Christian 
 Commonwealth, extended so far as to pass judgment, even in civil 
 affairs, on the acts of Princes and of Nations.' " * 
 
 Lastly. I must observe that these are not mere 
 opinions of the Pope himself, nor even are they 
 opinions which he might paternally recommend to 
 the pious consideration of the faithful. With the pro- 
 mulgation of his opinions is unhappily combined, in 
 the Encyclical Letter, which virtually, though not 
 expressly, includes the whole, a command to all his 
 spirituaLchildren (from which command we the disobe- 
 dient children are in no way excluded) to hold them. 
 
 " Itaque omnes et singulas pravas opiniones et 
 doctrinas singillatim hisce Uteris commemoratas 
 auctoritate nostra Apostolica reprobamus, proscri- 
 bimus, atque damnamus; easque ab omnibus Catholicse 
 Ecclesise filiis^ veluti reprobatas, proscriptas, atque 
 damnatas omnino haberi volumus et mandamus." 
 Encycl. Dec. 8, 1864. 
 
 And the decrees of 1870 will presently show us, 
 what they establish as the binding force of the man- 
 date thus conveyed to the Christian world. 
 
 * ' Civilization and the See of Eouie.' By Lord Eobert Mon- 
 tagu. Dublin, 1874. A Lecture delivered under the auspices of 
 the Catholic Union of Ireland. I have a little misgiving about 
 the version : but not of a nature to affect the substance. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 21 
 
 lY. The Third Proposition, 
 
 I now pass to the operation of these extraor- 
 dinary declarations on personal and private duty. 
 
 When the cup of endurance, which had so long 
 been filling, began, with the council of the Yatican 
 in 1870, to overflow, the most famous and learned 
 living theologian of the Roman Communion, Dr. von 
 Dollinger, long the foremost champion of his Church, 
 refused compliance, and submitted, with his temper 
 undisturbed and his freedom unimpaired, to the 
 extreme and most painful penalty of excommunication. 
 With him, many of the most learned and respected 
 theologians of the Roman Communion in Germany 
 underwent the same sentence. The very few, who 
 elsewhere (I do not speak of Switzerland) suffered in 
 like manner, deserve an admiration rising in propor- 
 tion to their fewness. It seems as though G-ermany, 
 from which Luther blew the mighty trumpet that 
 even now echoes through the land, still retained her 
 primacy in the domain of conscience, still supplied the 
 centuria prcerogativa of the great comitia of the world. 
 But let no man wonder or complain. Without im- 
 puting to anyone the moral murder, for such it is, of 
 stifling conscience and conviction, I for one cannot 
 be surprised that the fermentation, which is working 
 through the mind of the Latin Church, has as yet 
 (elsewhere than in Grermany) but in few instances 
 come to the surface. By the mass of mankind, it is 
 
22 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 morally impossible that questions sucli as these can 
 be adequately examined ; so it ever has been, and so 
 in the main it will continue, until the principles of 
 manufacturing machinery shall have been applied, 
 and with analogous results, to intellectual and moral 
 processes. Followers they are and must be, and in a 
 certain sense ought to be. But what as to the leaders 
 of society, the men of education and of leisure ? I will 
 try to suggest some answer in few words. A change of 
 religious profession is under all circumstances a great 
 and awful thing. Much more is the question, however, 
 between conflicting, or apparently conflicting, duties 
 arduous, when the religion of a man has been changed 
 for him, over his head, and without the very least of 
 his participation. Far be it then from me to make any 
 Roman Catholic, except the great hierarchic Power, 
 and those who have egged it on, responsible for the 
 portentous proceedings which we have witnessed. 
 My conviction is that, even of those who may not shake 
 off the yoke, multitudes will vindicate at any rate their 
 loyalty at the expense of the consistency, which per- 
 haps in difficult matters of religion few among us per- 
 fectly maintain. But this belongs to the future ; for 
 the present, nothing could in my opinion be more 
 unjust than to hold the members of the Roman Church 
 in general already responsible for the recent innova- 
 tions. The duty of observers, who think the claims 
 involved in these decrees arrogant and false, and such 
 as not even impotence real or supposed ought to 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 23 
 
 shield from criticism, is frankly to state the case, 
 and, by way of friendly challenge, to intreat their 
 Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to replace them- 
 selv^es in the position which five-and-forty years ago 
 this nation, by the voice and action of its Parliament, 
 declared its belief that they held. 
 
 Upon a strict re-examination of the language, as 
 apart from the substance of my fourtn Proposition, 
 I find it faulty, inasmuch as it seems to imply that a 
 " convert " now joining the Papal Church, not only 
 gives up certain rights and duties of freedom, but 
 surrenders them by a conscious and deliberate act. 
 What I have less accurately said that he renounced, 
 I might have more accurately said that he forfeited. 
 To speak strictly, the claim now made upon him by 
 the authority, which he solemnly and with the 
 highest responsibility acknowledges, requires him to 
 surrender his mental and moral freedom, and to place 
 his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another. 
 There may have been, and may be, persons who in 
 their sanguine trust will not shrink from this result, 
 and will console themselves with the notion that 
 their loyalty and civil duty are to be committed to the 
 custody of one much wiser than themselves. But I 
 am sure that there are also " converts " who, when 
 they perceive, will by word and act reject, the con- 
 sequence which relentless logic draws for them. If, 
 howevgr, my proposition be true, there is no escape 
 from the dilemma. Is it then true, or is it not true, 
 
24 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 that Rome requires a convert, who now joins her, to 
 forfeit his moral and mental freedom, and to place 
 his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another ? 
 
 In order to place this matter in as clear a light as 
 I can, it will be necessary to go back a little upon 
 our recent history. 
 
 A century ago we began to relax that system of 
 penal laws against Roman Catholics, at once petti- 
 fogging, base, and cruel, which Mr. Burke has 
 scathed and blasted with his immortal eloquence. 
 
 When this process had reached the point, at which 
 the question was whether they should be admitted 
 into Parliament, there arose a great and prolonged 
 national controversy ; and some men, who at no 
 time of their lives were narrow-minded, such as Sir 
 Robert Peel, the Minister, resisted the concession. 
 The arguments in its favour were obvious and strong, 
 and they ultimately prevailed. But the strength of 
 the opposing party had lain in the allegation that, 
 from the nature and claims of the Papal power, it was 
 not possible for the consistent Roman Catholic to pay 
 to tlie crown of this country an entire allegiance, and 
 that the admission of persons, thus self-disabled, to 
 Parliament was inconsistent with the safety of the 
 State and nation ; which had not very long before, 
 it may be observed, emerged from a struggle for 
 existence. 
 
 An answer to this argument was indispensable; 
 and it was supplied mainly from two sources. The 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 25 
 
 Josephine laws,* then still subsisting in the A.ustrian 
 empire, and the arrangements which had been made 
 after the peace of 1815 by Prussia and the G-erman 
 States with Pius VII. and Gonsalvi, proved that the 
 Papal Coxirt could submit to circumstances, and could 
 allow material restraints even upon the exercise of its 
 ecclesiastical prerogatives. Here, then, was a reply 
 in the sense of the phrase sohitur amhulando. Much 
 information of this class was collected for the infor- 
 mation of Parliament and the country .f But there 
 were also measures taken to learn, from the highest 
 Roman Catholic authorities of this country, what was 
 the exact situation of the members of that commu- 
 nion with respect to some of the better known exorbi- 
 tanciesof Papal assumption. Did the Pope claim any 
 temporal jurisdiction ? Did he still pretend to the 
 exercise of a power to depose kings, release subjects 
 from their allegiance, and incite them to revolt ? Was 
 faith to be kept with heretics ? Did the Church 
 still teach the doctrines of persecution ? Now, to no 
 
 * See the work of Count dal Pozzo on the ' Austrian Eccle- 
 siastical Law.' London : Murray, 1827. The Leopoldine Laws 
 in Tuscany may also he mentioned. 
 
 f See ' Keport from the Select Committse appointed to report 
 the nature and suhstance of the Laws and Ordinances existing 
 in Foreign States, respecting the regulation of their Roman 
 Catholic subjects in Ecclesiastical matters, and their intercourse 
 with the See of Rome, or any other Foreign Ecclesiastical Juris- 
 diction.' Printed for the House of Commons in 1816 and 1817. 
 Reprinted 1861. 
 
26 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 one of these questions could the answer really be of 
 the smallest immediate moment to this powerful 
 and solidly compacted kingdom. They were topics 
 selected by way of sample ; and the intention was to 
 elicit declarations showing generally that the fangs of 
 the mediseval Popedom had been drawn, and its claws 
 torn away ; that the Roman system, however strict 
 in its dogma, was perfectly compatible with civil 
 liberty, and with the institutions of a free State 
 moulded on a different religious basis from its own. 
 
 Answers in abundance were obtained, tending to 
 show that the doctrines of deposition and perse- 
 cution, of keeping no faith with heretics, and of 
 universal dominion, were obsolete beyond revival ; 
 that every assurance could be given respecting them, 
 except such as required the shame of a formal 
 retractation ; that they were in effect mere bugbears, 
 unworthy to be taken into account by a nation, 
 which prided itself on being made up of practical 
 men. 
 
 But it was unquestionably felt that something more 
 than the renunciation of these particular opinions 
 was necessary in order to secure the full concession 
 of civil rights to Roman Catholics. As to their indi- 
 vidual loyalty, a State disposed to generous or candid 
 interpretation had no reason to be uneasy. It was 
 only with regard to requisitions, which might be 
 made on them from another quarter, that apprehen- 
 sion could exist. It was reasonable that England 
 
IN THBIU BEARINa ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 27 
 
 should desire to know not only what the Pope* might 
 do for himself, hut to what demands, by the consti- 
 tution of their Church, they were liable ; and how far 
 it was possible that such demands could touch their 
 civil duty. The theory which placed every human 
 being, in things spiritual and things temporal, at the 
 feet of the Eoman Pontiff, had not been an idolum 
 speeds, a mere theory of the chamber. Brain-power 
 never surpassed in the political history of the world 
 had been devoted for centuries to the single purpose 
 of working it into the practice of Christendom ; had 
 in the West achieved for an impossible problem a 
 partial success; and had in the East punished the 
 obstinate independence of the Church by that Latin 
 conquest of Constantinople, which effectually pre- 
 pared the way for the downfall of the Eastern empire, 
 and the establishment of the Turks in Europe. What 
 was really material therefore was, not whether the 
 Papal chair laid claim to this or that particular 
 power, but whether it laid claim to some power that 
 included them all, and whether that claim had 
 received such sanction from the authorities of the 
 Latin Church, that there remained within her borders 
 
 * At that period the eminent and able Bishop Doyle did not 
 scruple to write as follows : "We are taunted with the proceedings 
 of Popes. "What, my Lord, have we Catholics to do with the 
 proceedings of Popes, or why should we be made accountable 
 for them ?" — ' Essay on the Catholic Claims.' To Lord Liver- 
 pool, 1826, p. 111. 
 
28 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 absolutely no tenable standing-ground from which war 
 against it could be maintained. Did the Pope then 
 claim infallibility ? Or did he, either without infalli- 
 bility or with it (and if with it so much the worse), 
 claim an universal obedience from his flock ? And 
 were these claims, either or both, affirmed in his 
 Church by authority which even the least Papal of 
 the members of that Church must admit to be bind- 
 ing upon conscience ? 
 
 The two first of these questions were covered by 
 the third. And well it was that they were so covered. 
 For to them no satisfactory answer could even then 
 be given. The Popes had kept up, with compara- 
 tively little intermission, for well-nigh a thousand 
 years their claim to dogmatic infallibility ; and had, 
 at periods within the same tract of time, often 
 enough made, and never retracted, that other claim 
 which is theoretically less but practically larger ; their 
 claim to an obedience virtually universal from the 
 baptised members of the Church. To the third 
 question it was fortunately more practicable to pre- 
 scribe a satisfactory reply. It was well known that, 
 in the days of its glory and intellectual power, the 
 great Gallican Church had not only not admitted, 
 but had denied Papal infallibility, and had declared 
 that the local laws and usages of the Church could 
 not be set aside by the will of the Pontiff. Nay, 
 further, it was beheved that in the main these had 
 been, down to the close of the last century, the pre- 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 29 
 
 vailing opinions of the Cisalpine Churches in com- 
 munion with Rome. The Council of Constance had 
 in act as well as word shown that the Pope's judg- 
 ments, and the Pope himself, were triable by the 
 assembled representatives of the Christian world. 
 And the Council of Trent, notwithstanding the pre- 
 dominance in it of Italian and Roman influences, if 
 it had not denied, yet had not affirmed either pro- 
 position. 
 
 All that remained was, to know what were the 
 sentiments entertained on these vital points by the 
 leaders and guides of Roman Catholic opinion nearest 
 to our own doors. And here testimony was offered, 
 which must not, and cannot, be forgotten. In part, 
 this was the testimony of witnesses before the Com- 
 mittee of the House of Lords in 1825. I need quote 
 two answers only, given by the Prelate, who more 
 than any other represented his Church, and influenced 
 the mind of this country in favour of concession at 
 the time, namely, Bishop Doyle, He was asked,* 
 
 " In what, and how far, does the Koman Catholic profess to 
 obey the Pope ? " 
 
 * Committees of both Lords and Commons sat ; the former 
 in 1825, the latter in 1824-5. The Eeferencea were identical, 
 and ran as follows : " To inquire into the state of Ireland, more 
 particularly with reference to the circumstances which may have 
 led to disturbances in that part of the United Kingdom." Bishop 
 Doyle was examined March 21, 1825, and April 21, 1825, before 
 the Lords. 
 
30 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 He replied ; 
 
 " The Catholic pi'ofesses to obey the Pope in matters which 
 regard his religious faith : and in those matters of ecclesiastical 
 discipline which have already been defined by the competent 
 authorities." 
 
 And again. 
 
 " Does that justify the objection that is made to Catholics, that 
 their allegiance is divided ? " 
 
 " I do not think it does in any way. We are bound to obey 
 the Pope in those things that I have already mentioned. But 
 our obedience to the law, and the allegiance which we owe the 
 sovereign, are complete, and full, and perfect, and undivided, 
 inasmuch as they extend to all political, legal, and civil rights 
 of the king or of his subjects. I think the allegiance due to the 
 king, and the allegiance due to the Pope, are as distinct and as 
 divided in their nature, as any two things can possibly be." 
 
 Such, is the opinion of the dead Prelate. We shall 
 presently hear the opinion of a living one. But the 
 sentiments of the dead man powerfully operated on 
 the open and trustful temper of this people to induce 
 them to grant, at the cost of so much popular feeling 
 and national tradition, the great and. just concession 
 of 1829. That concession, without such declarations, 
 it would, to say the least, have been far more difficult 
 to obtain. 
 
 Now, bodies are usually held to be bound by the 
 evidence of their own selected and typical witnesses. 
 But in this instance the colleagues of those witnesses 
 thought fit also to speak collectively. 
 
 First let us quote from the collective " Declara- 
 tion," in the year 1826, of the Yicars Apostolic, who, 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. : 31 
 
 with Episcopal authority, governed the Roman Catho- 
 lics of G-reat Britain. 
 
 " The allegiance which Catholics hold to be due, and are 
 bound to pay, to their Sovereign, and to the civil authority of 
 the State, is perfect and undivided 
 
 " They declare that neither the Pope, nor any other prelate 
 or ecclesiastical person of the Eoman Catholic Church .... 
 has any right to interfere directly or indirectly in the Civil 
 Government .... nor to oppose in any manner the per- 
 formance of the civil duties which are due to the king." 
 
 Not less explicit was the Hierarchy of the Roman 
 Communion in its " Pastoral Address to the Clergy 
 and Laity of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland," 
 dated January 25, 1826. This address contains a De- 
 claration, from which I extract the following words : — 
 
 " It is a duty which they owe to themselves, as well as to 
 their Protestant fellow-subjects, whose good opinion they value, 
 to endeavour once more to remove the false imputations that 
 have been frequently cast upon the faith and discipline of 
 that Church which is intrusted to their care, that all may be 
 enabled to know with accuracy their genuine principles." 
 
 In Article 11 : — 
 
 " They declare on oath their belief that it is not an article 
 of the Catholic Taith, neither are they thereby required to 
 believe, that the Pope is infallible." 
 
 and, after various recitals, they set forth 
 
 "After this full, explicit, and sworn declaration, we are utterly 
 at a loss to conceive on what possible ground we could be justly 
 charged with bearing towards our most gracious Sovereign only 
 a divided allegiance." 
 
 Thus, besides much else that I will not stop to quote, 
 
32 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 Papal infallibility was most solemnly declared to be 
 a matter on which each man might think as he 
 pleased ; the Pope's power to claim obedience was 
 strictly and narrowly limited : it was expressly denied 
 that he had any title, direct or indirect, to interfere 
 in civil government. Of the right of the Pope to 
 define the limits which divide the civil from the 
 spiritual by his own authority, not one word is said 
 by the Prelates of either country. 
 
 Since that time, all these propositions have been 
 reversed. The Pope's infallibility, when he speaks 
 ex catliedrd on faith and morals, has been declared, 
 with the assent of the Bishops of the Roman Church, 
 to be an article of faith, binding on the conscience of 
 every Christian ; his claim to the obedience of his 
 spiritual subjects has been declared in like manner 
 without any practical limit or reserve ; and his 
 supremacy, without any reserve of civil rights, has 
 been similarly affirmed to include everything which 
 relates to the discipline and government of the 
 Church throughout the world. And these doctrines, 
 we now know on the highest authority, it is of 
 necessity for salvation to believe. 
 
 Independently, however, of the Vatican Decrees 
 themselves, it is necessary for all who wish to under- 
 stand what has been the amount of the wonderful 
 change now consummated in the constitution of the 
 Latin Church, and what is the present degradation of 
 its Episcopal order, to observe also the change, amount- 
 
m THEIR BEAEING ON CIVIL ALLEGIAKOE. 33 
 
 ing to revolution, of form in the present, as compared 
 with other conciliatory decrees. Indeed, that spirit 
 of centralisation, the excesses of which are as fatal to 
 vigorous life in the Church as in the State, seems 
 now nearly to have reached the last and furthest 
 point of possible advancement and exaltation. 
 
 When, in fact, we speak of the decrees of the 
 Council of the Vatican, we use a phrase which will 
 not hear strict examination. The Canons of the 
 Council of Trent were, at least, the real Canons of a 
 real Council : and the strain in which they are pro- 
 mulgated is this : — Hcec sacrosancta, ecumenica, et 
 generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime 
 congregata, in ed prcesidentibus eisdem trihus apostolicis 
 Legatis, hortatur, or docet, or staiuit, or decernit, and the 
 like : and its canons, as published in Eome, are " Canones 
 et decreta Sacrosancti ecumenici Concilii Iridentini,"* 
 and so forth. But what we have now to do with is 
 the Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de EcclesicL Christi, 
 edita in Sessione tertid of the Vatican Council. It is 
 not a constitution made by the Council, but one pro- 
 mulgated in the CounciLf And who is it that legis- 
 lates and decrees? It is Pius Episcopvs, sei'vus 
 
 * ' Eomse : in Collegio uibano de Propaganda Fide.' 1833. 
 
 ■f I am aware that, as some hold, Ihis was the case with 'the 
 Council of the Lateran in a.d. 1215. But, first, this has not been 
 established : secondly, the very gibt of the evil we are dealing 
 with consists in following (and enforcing) precedents from the 
 age of Pope Innocent HI. 
 
 O 
 
34 THE VATICAN DECEEES 
 
 servorum Dei : and the seductive plural of" his docemu& 
 et declaramus is simply the dignified and ceremonious 
 " We " of Eoyal declarations. The document is 
 dated Pontificatils nostri Anno XXV : and the humble 
 share of the assembled Episcopate in the transaction 
 is represented by sacro approhante conoilio. And now 
 for the propositions themselves. 
 
 First comes the Pope's infallibility : — 
 
 " Docemus, et divinittis revelatum dogma esse definimus, 
 Eomanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedri, loquitur, id est cum, 
 omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere fungens, 
 pro suprema sua Apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel 
 moribus ab universa Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam 
 divinam, ipsiin Beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollers, 
 qua Divinus Eedemptor Ecclesiam suam in definiendS. doctrina 
 de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit : ideoque ejus Eomani 
 Pontificis definitiones ex sese non autem ex consensu Ecolesise 
 irreformabiles esse."* 
 
 Will it, then, be said that the infallibility of the 
 Pope accrues only when he speaks ex cathedrd ? No 
 doubt this is a very material consideration for those 
 who have been told that the private conscience is to 
 derive comfort and assurance from the emanations 
 of the Papal Chair : for there is no established or 
 accepted definition of the phrase ecc cathedrd, and he 
 has no power to obtain one, and no guide to direct 
 him in his choice among some twelve theories on 
 the subject, which, it is said, are bandied to and fro 
 
 ■ Constitutio de Ecclesia,' c. iv. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 35 
 
 among Roman theologians, except the despised and 
 discarded agency of his private judgment. But while 
 thus sorely tantalised, he is not one whit protected. 
 For there is still one person, and one only, who can 
 unquestionably declare ex cathedrd what is ex cathedrd 
 and what is not, and who can declare it when and as 
 he pleases. That person is the Pope himself. The 
 provision is, that no document he issues shall be valid 
 without a seal : but the seal remains under his own 
 sole lock and key. 
 
 Again, it may be sought to plead, that the Pope 
 is, after all, only operating by sanctions which un- 
 questionably belong to the religious domain. He 
 does not propose to invade the country, to seize 
 Woolwich, or burn Portsmouth. He will only, at 
 the worst, excommunicate opponents, as he has ex- 
 communicated Dr. von Bollinger and others. Is this 
 a good answer ? After all, even in the Middle Ages, 
 it was not by the direct action of fleets and armies of 
 their own that the Popes contended with kings who 
 were refractory ; it was mainly by interdicts, and by 
 the refusal, which they entailed when the Bishops 
 were not brave enough to refuse their publication, 
 of religious oiBces to the people. It was thus that 
 England suffered under John, France under Philip 
 Augustus, Leon under Alphonso the Noble, and 
 every country in its turn. But the inference may be 
 drawn that they who, while using spiritual weapons 
 for such an end, do not employ temporal means, only 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 fail to employ them because they have them not. 
 A religious society, which delivers volleys of spiritual 
 censures in order to impede the performance of 
 civil duties, does all the mischief that is in its power 
 to do, and brings into question, in the face of the 
 State, its title to civil protection. 
 
 Will it be said, finally, that the Infallibility touches 
 only matter of faith and morals ? Only matter of 
 morals ! Will any of the Eoman casuists kindly 
 acquaint us what are the departments and functions 
 of human life which do not and cannot fall within the 
 domain of morals ? If they will not tell us, we must 
 look elsewhere. In his work entitled ' Literature 
 and Dogma,' * Mr. Matthew Arnold quaintly informs 
 us — as they tell us nowadays how many parts of our 
 poor bodies are solid, and how many aqueous — that 
 about seventy-five per cent, of all we do belongs to 
 the department of " conduct." Conduct and morals, 
 we may suppose, are nearly co-extensive.. Three- 
 fourths, then, of life are thus handed over. But who 
 will guarantee to us the other fourth? Certainly 
 not St. Paul ; who says, " Whether therefore ye eat, 
 or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of 
 Grocl." And " Whatsoever ye do, in word or in 
 deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." f No ! 
 Such a distinction would be the unworthy device of a 
 
 * Pages 15, 44. 
 t 1 Cor. X. 31 ; Col. iii. 7. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 37 
 
 shallow policy, vainly used to hide the daring of that 
 wild ambition which at Rome, not from the throne but 
 from behind the throne, prompts the movements of 
 the Vatican. I care not to ask if there be dregs or 
 tatters of human life, such as can escape from the 
 description and boundary of morals. I submit that 
 Duty is a power which rises with us in the morning, 
 and goes to rest with us at night. It is co-extensive 
 with the action of our intelligence. It is the shadow 
 which cleaves to us go where we will, and which 
 only leaves us when we leave the light of life. So 
 then it is the supreme direction of us in respect to all 
 Duty, which the Pontiff declares to belong to him, 
 sacro approhante concilio : and this declaration he 
 makes, not as an otiose opinion of the schools, but 
 cunctis jidelihus credendam et tenendam. 
 
 But we shall now see that, even if a loophole had 
 at this point been left unclosed, the void is supplied 
 by another provision of the Decrees. While the 
 reach of the Infallibility is as wide as it may please 
 the Pope, or those who may prompt the Pope, to 
 make it, there is something wider still, and that is 
 the claim to an absolute and entire Obedience. This 
 Obedience is to be rendered to his orders in the cases 
 I shall proceed to point out, without any qualifying 
 condition, such as the ex cathedrd. The sounding 
 name of Infallibility has so fascinated the public 
 mind, and riveted it on the Fourth Chapter of the 
 Constitution de Ecchsid, that its near neighbour, the 
 
38 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 Third Chapter, has, at least in my opinion, received 
 very much less than justice. Let us turn to it. 
 
 " CuJTiscunque ritus et dignitatis pastores atque fideles, tarn 
 seorsum sing;uli quam simul omnes, officio hierarchicss subordi- 
 nationis versequeobedientiae obstringuntur, non solum in rebus, 
 quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et 
 
 regimen Ecclesiee per totum orbem diffusse pertinent Haeo 
 
 est Catbolicse veritatis doctrina, a qua deviare, salva fide atque 
 salute, nemo putest. . . . 
 
 " Docemus etiam et declaramus eum esse judicem supremum 
 fidelium, et in omnibus cansis ad examen ecclesiasticnm spec- 
 tantibus ad ipsius posse judicium recurri : Sedis veao Apostolicae, 
 cujus auctoritate major non est, judicium a nemine fore retrac- 
 tandum. Neque cuiquam de ejus licere judicare judicio."* 
 
 Even, therefore, where the judgments of the Pope 
 do not present the credentials of inlallibility, they 
 are unappealable and irreversible : no person may pass 
 judgment upon them ; and all men, clerical and lay, 
 dispersedly or in the aggregate, are bound truly to 
 obey them ; and from this rule of Catholic truth no 
 man can depart, save at the peril of his salvation. 
 Surely, it is allowable to say that this Third Chapter 
 on universal obedience is a formidable rival to the 
 Fourth Chapter on Infallibility. Indeed, to an ob- 
 server from without^ it seems to leave the dignity to 
 the other, but to reserve the stringency and efficiency 
 to itself. The Third Chapter is the Merovingian 
 Monarch ; the fourth is the Carolingian Mayor of the 
 Palace. The third has an overawing splendour ; the 
 
 ■ Dogmatic Constitutions,' &c., c. iii. Dublin, 1870, pp. 30-32. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEaiANCE. 39 
 
 fourth, an iron gripe. Little does it matter to me 
 whether my superior claims infallibility, so long as 
 he is entitled to demand and exact conformity. This, 
 it will be observed, he demands even in cases not 
 covered by his infallibility ; cases, therefore, in which 
 he admits it to be possible that he may be wrong, but 
 finds it intolerable to be told so. As he must be 
 obeyed in all his judgments though not ex cathedra, 
 it seems a pity he could not likewise give the com- 
 forting assurance that, they are all certain to be 
 right. 
 
 But why this ostensible reduplication, this appa- 
 rent surplusage ? Why did the astute contrivers of 
 this tangled scheme conclude that they could not 
 afford to rest content with pledging the Council to 
 Infallibility in terms which are not only wide to a 
 high degree, but elastic beyond all measure ? 
 
 Though they must have known perfectly well that 
 " faith and morals " carried everything, or everything 
 worth having, in the purely individual sphere, they 
 also knew just as well that, even where the individual 
 was subjugated, they might and would still have to 
 deal with the State. 
 
 In mediseval history, this distinction is not only 
 clear, but glaring. Outside the borders of some 
 narrow and proscribed sect, now and then emerging, 
 we never, or scarcely ever, hear of private and per- 
 sonal resistance to the Pope. The manful " Pro- 
 testantism " of mediaeval times had its activity almost 
 
40 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 entirely in the sphere of pubhc, national, and state 
 rights. Too much attention, in my opinion, cannot 
 be fastened on this point. It is the very root and 
 kernel of the matter. Individual servitude, however 
 abject, will not satisfy the party now dominant in 
 the Latin Church : the State must also be a 
 slave. 
 
 Our Saviour had recognised as distinct the two 
 provinces of the civil rule and the Church : had no- 
 where intimated that the spiritual authority was to 
 claim the disposal of physical force, and to control in 
 its own domain the authority which is alone responsible 
 for external peace, order, and safety among civilised 
 communities of men. It has been alike the pecu- 
 liarity, the pride, and the misfortune of the Eoman 
 Church, among Christian communities, to allow to 
 itself an unbounded use, as far as its power would go, 
 of earthly instruments for spiritual ends. We have 
 seen with what ample assurances* this nation and 
 Parliament were fed in 1826 ; how well and roundly 
 the full and undivided rights of the civil power, and 
 the separation of the two jurisdictions, were affirmed. 
 All this had at length been undone, as far as Popes 
 could undo it, in the Syllabus and the Encyclical, It 
 remained to complete the undoing, through the sub- 
 serviency or pliability of the Council, 
 
 And the work is now truly complete. Lest it 
 
 * See further, Appendix B. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 41 
 
 should be said that supremacy in faith and morals, full 
 dominion over personal belief and conduct, did not 
 cover the collective action of men in States, a third 
 province was opened, not indeed to the abstract asser- 
 tion of Infallibility, but to the far more practical and 
 decisive demand of absolute Obedience. And this 
 is the proper work of the Third Chapter, to which 
 I am endeavouring to do a tardy justice. Let us 
 listen again to its few but pregnant words on the 
 point : 
 
 " Nod solum in rebus, quse ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in 
 iis, qu88 ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesise per totum orbem 
 diffuses pertinent." 
 
 Absolute obedience, it is boldly declared, is due to 
 the Pope, at the peril of salvation, not alone in faith, 
 in morals, but in all things which concern the disci- 
 pline and government of the Church. Thus are swept 
 into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole 
 systems of government, prevailing, though in dif- 
 ferent degrees, in every country of the world. Even 
 in the United States, where the severance between 
 Church and State is supposed to be complete, a long 
 catalogue might be drawn of subjects belonging to 
 the domain and competency of the State, but also 
 undeniably affecting the government of the Church ; 
 such as, by way of example, marriage, burial, edu- 
 cation, prison discipline, blasphemy, poor-relief, in- 
 corporation, mortmain, religious endowments, vows 
 of celibacy and obedience. • In Europe the circle is 
 
42 THE VATICAN DEGREES 
 
 far wider, the points of contact and of interlacing 
 almost innumerable. But on all matters, respecting 
 which any Pope may think proper to declare that they 
 concern either faith, or morals, or the government 
 or discipline of the Church, he claims, with the 
 approval of a Council undoubtedly Ecumenical in 
 the Roman sense, the absolute obedience, at the peril 
 of salvation, of every member of his communion. 
 
 It seems not as yet to have been thought wise to 
 pledge the Council in terms ^ to the Syllabus and the 
 Encyclical. That achievement is probably reserved 
 for some one of its sittings yet to come. In the 
 meantime it is well to remember, that this claim in 
 respect of all things affecting the discipline and 
 government of the Church, as well as faith and 
 conduct, is lodged in open day by and in the reign 
 of a Pontiff, who has condemned free speech, free 
 writing, a free press, toleration of nonconformity, 
 liberty of consciencCj the study of civil and philo- 
 sophical matters in independence of the ecclesiastical 
 authority, marriage unless sacramentally contracted, 
 and the definition by the State of the civil rights 
 (jura) of the Church ; who has demanded for the 
 Church, therefore, the title to define its own civil 
 rights, together with a divine right to civil im- 
 munities, and a right to use physical force ; and who 
 has also proudly asserted that the Popes of the Middle 
 Ages with their councils did not invade the rights of 
 princes: as for example, Gregory VII., of the Emperor 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 43 
 
 Henry IV. ; Innocent III., of Raymond of Toulouse ; 
 Paul III., in deposing Henry YIII. ; or Pius V., in 
 performing the like paternal office for Elizabeth. 
 
 I submit, then, that my fourth proposition is true : 
 and that England is entitled to ask, and to know, in 
 what way the obedience required by the Pope and 
 the Council of the Vatican is to be reconciled with 
 the integrity of civil allegiance ? 
 
 It has been shown that the Head of their Church, 
 so supported as undoubtedly to speak with its highest 
 authority, claims from Roman Catholics a plenary 
 obedience to whatever he may desire in relation not 
 to faith but to morals, and not only to these, but to 
 all that concerns the government and discipline of 
 the Church : that, of this, much lies within the domain 
 of the State : that, to obviate all misapprehension, the 
 Pope demands for himself the right to determine the 
 province of his own rights, and has so defined it in 
 formal documents, as to warrant any and every in- 
 vasion of the civil sphere ; and that this new version 
 of the principles of the Papal Church inexorably binds 
 its members to the admission of these exorbitant 
 claims, without any refuge or reservation on behalf 
 of their duty to the Crown . 
 
 Under circumstances such as these, it seems not 
 too much to ask of them to confirm the opinion which 
 we, as fellow-countrymen, entertain of them, by 
 sweeping away, in such manner and terms as they 
 may think best, the presumptive imputations which 
 
44 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 their ecclesiastical rulers at Home, acting autocrati- 
 cally, appear to have brought upon their capacity to 
 pay a solid and undivided allegiance ; and to fulfil 
 the engagement which their Bishops, as political 
 sponsors, promised and declared for them in 1 825. 
 
 It would be impertinent, as well as needless, to 
 suggest what should be said. All that is requisite is 
 to indicate in substance that which (if the foregoing 
 argument be sound) is not wanted, and that which 
 is. What is not wanted is vague and general asser- 
 tion, of whatever kind, and however sincere. What 
 is wanted, and that in the most specific form and 
 the clearest terms, I take to be one of two things ; 
 that is to say, either — 
 
 I. A demonstration that neither in the name of 
 faith, nor in the name of morals, nor in the name of 
 the government or discipline of the Church, is the 
 Pope of Rome able, by virtue of the powers asserted 
 for him by the Yatican decree, to make any claim 
 upon those who adhere to his communion, of such a 
 nature as can impair the integrity of their civil 
 allegiance ; or else, 
 
 II. That, if and when such claim is made, it will 
 even although resting on the definitions of the 
 Vatican, be repelled and rejected; just as Bishop 
 Doyle, when he was asked what the Roman Catholic 
 clergy would do if the Pope intermeddled with their 
 religion, replied frankly, " The consequence would 
 be, that we should oppose him by every means in 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 45 
 
 our power, even by the exercise of our spiritual 
 authority." * 
 
 In the absence of explicit assurances to this 
 effect, we should appear to be led, nay, driven, by 
 just reasoning upon that documentary evidence, to 
 the conclusions : — 
 
 1. That the Pope, authorised by his Council, 
 claims for himself the domain (a) of faith, (b) of 
 morals, (c) of all that concerns the government and 
 discipliue of the Church. 
 
 2. That he in like manner claims the power of 
 determining the limits of those domains. 
 
 3. That he does not sever them, by any acknow- 
 ledged or intelligible line, from the domains of civil 
 duty and allegiance. 
 
 4. That he therefore claims, and claims from the 
 month of July 1870 onwards with plenary autho- 
 rity, from every convert and member of his Church, 
 that he shall " place his loyalty and civil duty at the 
 mercy of another ; " that other being himself. 
 
 V. Being True, are the Propositions Material ? 
 
 But next, if these propositions be true, are they 
 also material ? The claims cannot, as I much fear, be 
 denied to have been made. It cannot be denied 
 that, the Bishops, who govern in things spiritual more 
 
 ■ Eeport,' March 18, 1826, p. 191. 
 
46 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 than five millions (or nearly one-sixth) of the inha- 
 bitants of the United Kingdom, have in some cases 
 promoted, in all cases accepted, these claims. It has 
 been a favourite purpose of my life not to conjure 
 up, but to conjure down, public alarms. I am not 
 now going to pretend that either foreign foe or 
 domestic treason can, at the bidding of the Court of 
 Rome, disturb these peaceful shores. But though 
 such fears may be visionary, it is more visionary 
 still to suppose for one moment that the claims of 
 Gregory YII., of Innocent III., and of Boniface VIII., 
 have been disinterred, in the nineteenth century, 
 like hideous mummies picked out of Egyptian sar- 
 cophagi, in the interests of archaeology, or without 
 a definite and practical aim. As rational beings, we 
 must rest assured that only with a very clearly 
 conceived and foregone purpose have these astonish- 
 ing reassertious been paraded before the world. 
 What is that purpose ? 
 
 I can well believe that it is in part theological. 
 There have always been, and there still are, no 
 small proportion of our race, and those by no means 
 in all respects the worst, who are sorely open to the 
 temptation, especially in times of religious disturb- 
 ance, to discharge their spiritual responsibilities by 
 pou-er of attorney. As advertising Houses find custom 
 in proportion, not so much to the solidity of their 
 resources as to the magniloquence of their premises 
 and assurances, so theological boldness in the extension 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 47 
 
 of such claims is sure to pay, by widening certain 
 circles of devoted adherents, however it may repel 
 the mass of mankind. There were two special 
 encouragements to this enterprise at the present 
 day : one of them the perhaps unconscious but mani- 
 fest leaning of some, outside the Roman precinct, to 
 undue exaltation of Church power ; the other the 
 reaction, which is and must be brought about in 
 favour of superstition, by the levity of the destructive 
 speculations so widely current, and the notable 
 hardihood of the anti-Christian writing of the day. 
 
 But it is impossible to account sufficiently in this 
 manner for the particular course which has been 
 actually pursued by the Roman Court. All morbid 
 spiritual appetites would have been amply satisfied 
 by claims to infallibility in creed, to the prerogative 
 of miracle, to dominion over the unseen world. In 
 truth there was occasion, in this view, for nothing, 
 except a liberal supply of Salmonean thunder : — 
 " Dum flammas Jovis, et sonitiis imitatur Olympi."* 
 
 All this could have been managed by a few Tetzels, 
 judiciously distributed over Europe. Therefore the 
 question still remains, Why did that Court, with 
 policy for ever in its eye, lodge such formidable 
 demands for power of the vulgar kind in that sphere 
 which is visible, and where hard knocks can undoubt- 
 edly be given as well as received ? 
 
 * Mn. vi. 686. 
 
48 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 It must be for some political object, of a very 
 tangible kind, that the risks of so daring a raid upon 
 the civil sphere have been deliberately run. 
 
 A daring raid it is. For it is most evident that the 
 very assertion of principles which establish an ex- 
 emption from allegiance, or which impair its com- 
 pleteness, goes, in many other countries of Europe, 
 far more directly than with us, to the creation of poli- 
 tical strife, and to dangers of the most material and 
 tangible kind. The struggle, now proceeding in 
 Germany, at once occurs to the mind as a palmary 
 instance. I am not competent to give any opinion 
 upon the particulars of that struggle. The institu- 
 tions of Grermany, and the relative estimate of State 
 power and individual freedom, are materially different 
 from ours. But I must say as much as this. Firstly, 
 it is not Prussia alone that is touched ; elsewhere, 
 too, the bone lies ready, though the contention may 
 be delayed. In other States, in Austria particularly, 
 there are recent laws in force, raising much the same 
 issues as the Falck laws have raised. But the 
 Eoman Court possesses in perfection one art, the art 
 of waiting ; and it is her wise maxim to fight but 
 one enemy at a time. Secondly, if I have truly 
 represented the claims promulgated from the Vati- 
 can, it is difficult to deny that those claims, and the 
 power which has made them, are primarily respon- 
 sible for the pains and perils, whatever they may be, 
 of the present coni3ict between Grermau and Roman 
 
IN THEIE BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 49 
 
 enactments. And that which was once truly said of 
 France, may now also be said with not less truth 
 of Germany : when Germany is disquieted, Europe 
 cannot be at rest. 
 
 T should feel less anxiety on this subject had the 
 Supreme Pontiff frankly recognised his altered posi- 
 tion since the events of 1870 ; and, in language as 
 clear, if not as emphatic, as that in which he has 
 proscribed modern civilisation, given to Europe the 
 assurance that he would be no party to the re- 
 establishment by blood and violence of the Tem- 
 poral Power of the Church. It is easy to conceive 
 that his personal benevolence, no less than his 
 feelings as an Italian, must have incKned him indi- 
 vidually towards a course so humane ; and I should 
 add, if I might do it without presumption, so pru- 
 dent. With what appears to an English eye a 
 lavish prodigality, successive Italian Governments 
 have made over the ecclesiastical powers and privi- 
 leges of the Monarchy, not to the Church of the 
 country for the revival of the ancient, popular, and 
 self-governing elements of its constitution, but to the 
 Papal Chair, for the establishment of ecclesiastical 
 despotism, and the suppression of the last vestiges of 
 independence. This course, so difficult for a foreigner 
 to appreciate, or even to justify, has been met, not by 
 reciprocal conciliation, but by a constant fire of 
 denunciations and complaints. When the tone 
 of these denunciations and complaints is compared 
 
 E 
 
50 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 with the language of the authorised aud favoured 
 Papal organs in the press, and of the Ultramontane 
 party (now the sole legitimate party of the Latin 
 Church) throughout Europe, it leads many to the 
 painful and revolting conclusion that there is a fixed 
 purpose among the secret inspirers of Roman policy 
 to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of 
 any favourable opportunity, the favourite project 
 of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom, 
 even if it can only be re-erected on the ashes of the 
 city, and amidst the whitening bones of the people.* 
 It is difficult to conceive or contemplate the effects of 
 such an endeavour. But the existence at this day 
 of the policy, even in bare idea, is itself a portentous 
 evil. I do not hesitate to say that it is an incentive 
 to general disturbance, a premium upon European 
 wars. It is in my opinion not sanguine only, but 
 almost ridiculous to imagine that such a project could 
 eventually succeed ; but it is difficult to over-estimate 
 the effect which it might produce in generating and 
 exasperating strife. It might even, to some extent, 
 disturb and paralyse the action of such Grovernments 
 as might interpose for no separate purpose of their 
 own, but only with a view to the maintenance or 
 restoration of the general peace. If the baleful 
 Power which is expressed by the phrase Curia 
 Romana, and not at all adequately rendered in its 
 
 * Appendix C. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 51 
 
 historic force by the usual English equivalent 
 " Court of Rome," really entertains the scheme, it 
 doubtless counts on the support in every country of 
 an organised and devoted party ; which, when it can 
 command the scales of political power, will promote 
 interference, and, when it is in a minority, will work 
 for securing neutrality. As the peace of Europe 
 may be in jeopardy, and as the duties even of Eng- 
 land, as one (so to speak) of its constabulary autho- 
 rities, might come to be in question, it would be most 
 interesting to know the mental attitude of our Roman 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen in England and Ireland 
 with reference to the subject ; and it seems to be one, 
 on which we are entitled to solicit information. 
 
 For there cannot be the smallest doubt that the 
 temporal power of the Popedom comes within the 
 true meaning of the words used at the Vatican to 
 describe the subjects on which the Pope is authorised 
 to claim, under awful sanctions, the obedience of the 
 " faithful." It is even possible that we have here 
 the key to the enlargement of the province of 
 Obedience beyond the limits of Infallibility, and to 
 the introduction of the remarkable phrase ad disci- 
 plinam et regimen Ecclesice. No impartial person can 
 deny that the question of the temporal power very 
 evidently concerns the discipline and government of ^ 
 the Church — concerns it, and most mischievously as 
 I should venture to think ; but in the opinion, up to 
 a late date, of many Roman Catholics, not only most 
 
 E 2 
 
52 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 beneficially, but even essentially. Let it be remem- 
 bered, that sucb a man as the late Count Montalem- 
 bert, who in his general politics was of the Liberal 
 party, did not scruple to hold that the millions of 
 Roman Catholics throughout the world were co- 
 partners with the inhabitants of the States of the 
 Church in regard to their civil government; and, 
 as constituting the vast majority, were of course 
 entitled to override them. It was also rather com- 
 monly held, a quarter of a century ago, that the 
 question of the States of the Church was one with 
 which none but Roman Catholic Powers could have 
 anything to do. This doctrine, I must own, was to 
 me at all times unintelligible. It is now, to say the 
 least, hopelessly and irrecoverably obsolete. 
 
 Archbishop Manning, who is the head of the Papal 
 Church in England, and whose ecclesiastical tone is 
 supposed to be in the closest accordance with that 
 of his headquarters, has not thought it too much 
 to say that the civil order of all Christendom is 
 the offspring of the Temporal Power, and has the 
 Temporal Power for its keystone ; that on the de- 
 struction of the Temporal Power " the laws of 
 nations would at once fall in ruins;" that (our 
 old friend) the deposing Power "taught subjects 
 obedience and princes clemency."* Nay, this high 
 
 * ' Three Lectures on the Temporal Sovereignty of the Popes,' 
 1860, pp. 34, 46, 47, 58-9, 63. 
 
m THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 53 
 
 authority has proceeded further ; and has elevated 
 
 the Temporal Power to the rank of necessary 
 
 doctrine. 
 
 " The Catholic Church cannot be silent, it cannot hold its 
 jjeace ; it cannot cease to preach the doctrines of Eevelation, 
 not only of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, but likewise 
 of the Seven Sacraments, and of the Infallibility of the Church 
 of God, and of the necessity of Unity, and of the Sovereignty, 
 both spiritual and temporal, of the Holy See." * 
 
 I never, for my own part, heard that the work 
 containing this remarkable passage was placed in the 
 ' Index Prohibitorum Librorum.' On the contrary, its 
 distinguished author was elevated, on the first oppor- 
 tunity, to the headship of the Roman Episcopacy in 
 England, and to the guidance of the million or there- 
 abouts of souls in its communion. And the more 
 recent utterances of the oracle have not descended 
 from the high level of those already cited. They 
 have, indeed, the recommendation of a comment, 
 not without fair claims to authority, on the recent 
 declarations of the Pope and the Council ; and of one 
 which goes to prove how far I am from having exag- 
 gerated or strained in the foregoing pages the mean- 
 ing of those declarations. Especially does this hold 
 good on the one point, the most vital of the whole — 
 the title to define the border line of the two provinces, 
 which the Archbishop not unfairly takes to be the true 
 
 * ' The present Crisis of the Holy See.' By H. E. Manning, 
 i).D, London, 1861, p. 73. 
 
54 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 criterion of supremacy, as between rival powers like 
 the Church and the State. 
 
 " If, then, the civil power be not competent to decide the 
 limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can 
 define, with a divine certainty, its own limits, it is evidently- 
 supreme. Or, in other words, the spiritual power knows, with 
 divine certainty, the limits of its own jurisdiction : and it 
 knows therefore the limits and the competence of the civil 
 power. It is thereby, in matters of religion and conscience, 
 supreme. I do not see how this can be denied without denying 
 Christianity. And if this be so, this is the doctrine of the 
 Bull Unam Sanctam* and of the Syllabus, and of the Vatican 
 Council. It is, in fact, Ultramontanism, for this term means 
 neither less nor more. The Church, therefore, is separate 
 and supreme. 
 
 " Let us then ascertain somewhat further, what is the mean- 
 ing of supreme. Any power which is independent, and can alone 
 fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of 
 all other jurisdictions, is, ipso facto, supreme.^ But the Church of 
 Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, 
 is all this, or is nothing, or worse than nothing, an imposture 
 and an usurpation — that is, it is Christ or Antichrist." J 
 
 But the whole pamphlet should be read by those who 
 desire to know the true sense of the Papal declara- 
 tions and Vatican decrees, as they are understood by 
 the most favoured ecclesiastics ; understood, I am 
 bound to own, so far as I can see, in their natural, 
 legitimate, and inevitable sense. Such readers will 
 
 * On the Bull Unam Sanctam, " of a most odious kind ;" see 
 Bishop Doyle's Essay, already cited. He thus describes it. 
 
 f The italics are not in the original. 
 
 I ' Csesarism and Ultramontanism.' By Archbishop Manning, 
 1874, pp. 35-6. 
 
IN THEIR BEARINa ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 55 
 
 be assisted by the treatise in seeing clearly, and in 
 admitting frankly that, whatever demands may here- 
 after, and in whatever circumstances, be made upon 
 us, we shall be unable to advance with any fairness 
 the plea that it has been done without due notice. 
 
 There are millions upon millions of the Protestants 
 of this country, who would agree with Archbishop 
 Manning, if he were simply telling us that Divine 
 truth is not to be sought from the lips of the State, 
 nor to be sacrificed at its command. But those 
 millions would tell him, in return, that the State, as 
 the power which is alone responsible for the external 
 order of the world, can alone conclusively and finally 
 be competent to determine what is to take place in 
 the sphere of that external order. 
 
 I have shown, then, that the Propositions, espe- 
 cially that which has been felt to be the chief one 
 among them, being true, are also material ; material 
 to be generally known, and clearly understood, and 
 well considered, on civil grounds ; inasmuch as they 
 invade, at a multitude of points, the civil sphere, and 
 seem even to have no very remote or shadowy con- 
 nection with the future peace and security of Chris- 
 tendom. 
 
 VI. Were the Propositions proper to be set 
 
 FORTH BY THE PRESENT WeITBR ? 
 
 There remains yet before us only the shortest and 
 least significant portion of the inquiry, namely, 
 
56 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 whether these things, being true, and being material 
 to be said, were also proper to be said by me. I must 
 ask pardon, if a tone of egotism be detected in this 
 necessarily subordinate portion of my remarks. 
 
 For thirty years, and in a great variety of circum- 
 stances, in office and as an independent Member of 
 Parliament, in majorities and in small minorities, and 
 during the larger portion of the time * as the repre- 
 sentative of a great constituency, mainly clerical, I 
 have, with others, laboured to maintain and extend 
 the civil rights of my Roman Catholic fellow-country- 
 men. The Liberal party of this country, with which 
 I have been commonly associated, has suffered, and 
 sometimes suffered heavily, in public favour and in 
 influence, from the belief that it was too ardent in the 
 pursuit of that policy ; while at the same time it has 
 always been in the worst odour with the Court of 
 Rome, in consequence of its (I hope) unalterable 
 attachment to Italian liberty and independence. I 
 have sometimes been the spokesman of that party in 
 recommendations which have tended to foster in fact 
 the imputation I have mentioned, though not to 
 warrant it as matter of reason. But it has existed in 
 fact. So that while (as I think) general justice to 
 society required that these things which I have now 
 set forth should be written, special justice, as towards 
 the party to which I am loyally attached, and which 
 
 * From 1847 to 1865 I sat for the University of Oxford. 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL x^LLEGIANCE. 57 
 
 I may have had a share in thus placing at a disadvan- 
 tage before our countrymen, made it, to say the least, 
 becoming that I should not shrink from writing them. 
 
 In discharging that office, I have sought to perform 
 the part not of a theological partisan, but simply of a 
 good citizen ; of one hopeful that many of his Eoman 
 Catholic friends and fellow-countrymen, who are, to 
 say the least of it, as good citizens as himself, may 
 perceive that the case is not a frivolous case, but one 
 that merits their attention. 
 
 I will next proceed to give the reason why, up to 
 a recent date, I have thought it right in the main to 
 leave to any others, who might feel it, the duty of 
 dealing in detail with this question. 
 
 The great change, which seems to me to have been 
 brought about in the position of Roman Catholic 
 Christians as citizens, reached its consummation, and 
 came into full operation in July 1870, by the pro- 
 ceedings or so-called decrees of the Vatican Cotmcil. 
 
 Up to that time, opinion in the Eoman Church on 
 all matters involving civil liberty, though partially 
 and sometimes widely intimidated, was free wherever 
 it was resolute. During the Middle Ages, heresy was 
 often extinguished in blood, but in every Cisalpine 
 country a principle of liberty, to a great extent, held 
 its own, and national life refused to be put down. 
 Nay more, these precious and inestimable gifts had 
 not infrequently for their champions a local prelacy 
 and clergy. The Constitutions of Clarendon, cursed 
 
58 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 from the Papal throne, were the work of the English 
 Bishops. Stephen Langton, appointed directly, 
 through an extraordinary stretch of power, by 
 Innocent III., to the See of Canterbury, headed the 
 Barons of England in extorting from the Papal 
 minion John, the worst and basest of all our 
 Sovereigns, that Magna Charta, which the Pope 
 at once visited with his anathemas. In the reign 
 of Henry VIII., it was Tunstal, Bishop of Durham, 
 who first wrote against the Papal domination. 
 Tunstal was followed by Grardiner ; and even the 
 recognition of the Royal Headship was voted by 
 the clergy, not under Cranmer, but under his unsus- 
 pected predecessor Warham. Strong and domineer- 
 ing as was the high Papal party in those centuries, 
 the resistance was manful. Thrice in history, it 
 seemed as if what we may call the Constitutional 
 party in the Church was about to triumph : first, at 
 the epoch of the Council of Constance ; secondly, 
 when the French Episcopate was in conflict with 
 Pope Innocent XI. ; thirdly, when Clement XIV. 
 levelled with the dust the deadliest foes that mental 
 and moral liberty have ever known. But from July 
 1870, this state of things has passed away, and the 
 death-warrant of that Constitutional party has been 
 signed, and sealed, and promulgated in form. 
 
 Before that time arrived, although I had used ex- 
 pressions sufficiently indicative as to the tendency of 
 things in the great Latin Communion, yet I had for 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 59 
 
 very many years felt it to be the first and para- 
 mount duty of the British Legislature, whatever 
 Rome might say or do, to give to Ireland all that 
 justice could demand, in regard to matters of con- 
 science and of civil equality, and thus to set herself 
 right in the opinion of the civilised world. So far 
 from seeing, what some believed they saw, a spirit of 
 unworthy compliance in such a course, it appeared 
 to me the only one which suited either the dignity 
 or the duty of my country. While this debt remained 
 unpaid, both before and after 1870, I did not think 
 it my province to open formally a line of argument 
 on a question of prospective rather than immediate 
 moment, which might have prejudiced the matter of 
 duty lying nearest our hand, and morally injured 
 G-reat Britain not less than Ireland, Churchmen and 
 Nonconformists not less than adherents of the Papal 
 Communion, by slackening the disposition to pay the 
 debt of justice. When Parliament had passed the 
 Church Act of 1869 and the Land Act of 1870, there 
 remained only, under the great head of Imperial 
 equity, one serious question to be dealt with — that of 
 the higher Education. I consider that the Liberal majo- 
 rity in the House of Commons, and the Government 
 to which I had the honour and satisfaction to belong, 
 formally tendered payment in full of this portion of 
 the debt by the Irish University Bill of February 
 1873. Some indeed think, that it was overpaid : a 
 question into which this is manifestly not place to 
 
60 THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 enter. But the Roman Catholic prelacy of Ireland 
 thought fit'^to procure the rejection of that measure, 
 by the direct influence which they exercised over a 
 certain number of Irish Members of Parliament, and 
 by the temptation which they thus offered — the bid, 
 in effect, which (to use a homely phrase) they made, 
 to attract the support of the Tory Opposition. Their 
 efforts were crowned with a complete success. From 
 that time forward I have felt that the situation was 
 changed, and that important matters would have to 
 be cleared by suitable explanations. The debt to 
 Ireland had been paid : a debt to the country at 
 large had still to be disposed of, and this has come 
 to be the duty of the hour. So long, indeed, as I 
 continued to be Prime Minister, I should not have 
 considered a broad political discussion on a general 
 question suitable to proceed from me ; while neither 
 I nor (I am certain) my colleagues would have been 
 disposed to run the risk of stirring popular passions 
 by a vulgar and unexplained appeal. But every 
 difficulty, arising from the necessary limitations of an 
 official position, has now been removed. 
 
 YII. OjiT THE Home Policy op the Future. 
 
 I could not, however, conclude these observations 
 without anticipating and answering an inquiry they 
 suggest. "Are they, then," it will be asked, "a 
 recantation and a regret ; and what are they meant 
 
IN THEIR BEARING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 61 
 
 to recommend as the policy of the future ? " My 
 reply shall be succinct and plain. Of what the 
 Liberal party has accomplished, by word or deed, in 
 establishing the full civil equality of Roman Catho- 
 lics, I regret nothing, and I recant nothing. 
 
 It is certainly a political misfortune that, during 
 the last thirty years, a Church so tainted in its views 
 of civil obedience, and so unduly capable of changing 
 its front and language after Emancipation from what 
 it had been before, like an actor who has to perform 
 several characters in one piece, should have acquired an 
 extension of its hold upon the highest classes of this 
 country. The conquests have been chiefly, as might 
 have been expected, among women ; but the number 
 of male converts, or captives (as I might prefer to 
 call them), has not been inconsiderable. There is no 
 doubtj that every one of these secessions is in the 
 nature of a considerable moral and social severance. 
 The breadth of this gap varies, according to varieties 
 of individual character. But it is too commonly a 
 wide one. Too commonly, the spirit of the neophyte is 
 expressed by the words which have become notorious : 
 " a Catholic first, an Englishman afterwards." Words 
 which properly convey no more than a truism ; for 
 every Christian must seek to place his religion even 
 before his country in his inner heart. But very far 
 from a truism in the sense in which we have been led 
 to construe them. We take them to mean that the 
 " convert " intends, in case of any conflict between 
 
62 THE YATICAN DECREES 
 
 the Queen and the Pope, to follow the Pope, and 
 let the Queen shift for herself; which, happily, she 
 can well do. 
 
 Usually, in this country, a movement in the highest 
 class would raise a presumption of a similar move- 
 ment in the mass. It is not so here. Rumours have 
 gone about that the proportion of members of the 
 Papal Church to the population has increased, espe- 
 cially in England. But these rumours would seem 
 to be confuted by authentic figures. The Roman 
 Catholic Marriages, which supply a competent test, 
 and which were 4*89 per cent, of the whole in 1854, 
 and 4 "62 per cent, in 1859, were 4*09 per cent, in 
 1869, and 4-02 per cent, in 1871. 
 
 There is something at the least abnormal in such 
 a partial growth, taking effect as it does among the 
 wealthy and noble, while the people cannot be 
 charmed, by any incantation, into the Roman camp. 
 The original Grospel was supposed to be meant espe- 
 cially for the poor ; hut the gospel of the nineteenth 
 century from Rome courts another and less modest 
 destination. If the Pope does not control more 
 souls among us, he certainly controls more acres. 
 
 The seyerance, however, of a certain number of 
 lords of the spil from those who till it, can be borne. 
 And so I trust will in like manner be endured the 
 new and very real " aggression " of the principles pro- 
 mulgated by Papal authority, whether they are or 
 are not loyally disclaimed. In this matter, each man 
 
IN THEIR .BEAEING ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 63 
 
 is his own judge and his own guide : I can speak for 
 myself. I am no longer able to say, as I would have 
 said before 1870, "There is nothing in the necessary 
 belief of the Roman Catholic which can appear to 
 impeach his full civil title ; for, whatsoever be the 
 follies of ecclesiastical power in his Church, his 
 Church itself has not required of him, with binding 
 authority, to assent to any principles inconsistent 
 with his civil duty." That ground is now, for the 
 present at least, cut from under my feet. What 
 then is to be our course of policy hereafter ? First 
 let me say that, as regards the great Imperial 
 settlement, achieved by slow degrees, which has 
 admitted men of all creeds subsisting among us to 
 Parliament, that I conceive to be so determined 
 beyond all doubt or question, as to have become one 
 of the deep foundation-stones of the existing Constitu- 
 tion. But inasmuch as, short of this great charter of 
 public liberty, and independeUtly of all that has been 
 done, there are pending matters of comparatively 
 minor moment which have been, or may be, subjects 
 of discussion, not without interest attaching to them, 
 I can suppose a question to arise in the minds of 
 some. My own views and intentions in the future 
 are of the smallest significance. But, if the argu- 
 ments I have here offered make it my duty to declare 
 them, I say at once the future will be exactly as the 
 past : in the little that depends on me, I shall be 
 guided hereafter, as heretofore, by the rule of main- 
 
64 THE VATICAN DECREES. 
 
 taining equal civil rights irrespectively of religious 
 differences ; and shall resist all attempts to exclude 
 the members of the Roman Church from the benefit 
 of that rule. Indeed I may say that I have already 
 given conclusive indications of this view, by sup- 
 porting in Parliament, as a Minister, since 1870, the 
 repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, for what I 
 think ample reasons. Not only because the time 
 has not yet come when we can assume the conse- 
 quences of the revolutionary measures of 1870 to 
 have been thoroughly weighed and digested by all 
 capable men in the Roman Communion. Not only 
 because so great a numerical proportion are, as I have 
 before observed, necessarily incapable of mastering, 
 and forming their personal judgment upon, the case. 
 Quite irrespectively even of these considerations, I 
 hold that our onward even course should not be 
 changed by follies, the consequences of which, if the 
 worst come to the worst, this country will have alike 
 the power and, in case of need, the will to control. 
 The State will, I trust, be ever careful to leave the 
 domain of religious conscience free, and yet to keep it 
 to its own domain ; and to allow neither private caprice 
 nor, above all, foreign arrogance to dictate to it in the 
 discharge of its proper office. "England expects 
 every man to do his duty ;" and none can be so well 
 prepared under all circumstances to exact its per- 
 formance as that Liberal party, which has done the 
 work of justice alike for Nonconformists and for Papal 
 
IN THEIE BEAEINa ON CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 65 
 
 dissidents, and whose members have so often, for the 
 sake of that work, hazarded their credit with the 
 markedly Protestant constituencies of the country. 
 Strong the State of the United Kingdom has always 
 been in material strength ; and its moral panoply is 
 now, we may hope, pretty complete. 
 
 It is not then for the dignity of the Crown and 
 people of the United Kingdom to be diverted from 
 a path which they have deliberately chosen, and 
 which it does not rest with all the myrmidons of 
 the Apostolic Chamber either openly to obstruct, or 
 secretly to undermine. It is rightfully to be expected, 
 it is greatly to be desired, that the Roman Catholics 
 of this country should do in the Nineteenth century 
 what their forefathers of England, except a handful 
 of emissaries, did in the Sixteenth, when they were 
 marshalled in resistance to the Armada, and in the 
 Seventeenth when, in despite of the Papal Chair, 
 they sat in the House of Lords under the Oath of 
 Allegiance. That which we are entitled to desire, 
 we are entitled also to expect : indeed, to say we 
 did not expect it, would, in my judgment, be the 
 true way of conveying an " insult " to those con- 
 cerned. In this expectation we may be partially 
 disappointed. Should those to whom I appeal, 
 thus unhappily come to bear witness in their own 
 persons to the decay of sound, manly, true life in 
 their Church, it will be their loss more than ours. 
 The inhabitants of these Islands, as a whole, are 
 
 F 
 
66 THE VATICAN DECBEES. 
 
 stable, though sometimes credulous and excitable ; 
 resolute, though sometimes boastful : and a strong- 
 headed and soundhearted race will not be hindered, 
 either by latent or by avowed dissents, due to the 
 foreign influence of a caste, from the accomplish- 
 ment of its mission in the world. 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 The numbers here given correspond with those of the Eighteen Pro- 
 positions given in the text, where it would have been less convenient 
 to cite the originals. 
 
 1, 2, 3. " Ex qua omnino falsa socialis regiminis idea baud 
 timent erroneam illam fovere opinionem, Catholicse Ecclesise, 
 animanimque saluti maxime exitialem, a rec. mem. Gre- 
 gorio XIV. prsedecessore Nostro deliramentum appellatam 
 (eadem Encycl. mirari), nimirum, libertatem conscientise at 
 cultuum esse proprium cujuscunque hominis jus, quod lege 
 proclamari, et asseri debet in omni recte constituta societate, 
 et jus civibus inesse ad omnimodam libertatem nulla vel 
 ecclesiastica, vel civili auctoritate coarctandam, quo sues 
 conceptus quoscumque sive voce sive typis, sive alia ratione 
 palam publiceque manifestare ac declarare valeant." — Ency- 
 clical Letter. 
 
 4. " Atque silentio prseterire non possumus eorum auda- 
 ciam, qui sanam non sustinentes doetrinam ' illis Apostolicse 
 Sedis judiciis, et decretis, quorum objectum ad bonum gene- 
 rale Ecclesiae, ejusdemque jura, ao disciplinam spectare decla- 
 ratur, dummodo fidei morumque dogmata non attingat, posse 
 assensum et obedientiam detrectari absque peecato, et absque 
 uUa Catholicse professionis jactura.' " — Ihid. 
 
 5. " Ecclesia non est vera perfectaque societas plane libera, 
 nee pollet suis propriis et constantibus juribus sibi a divino 
 
68 APPENDICES. 
 
 suo Fundatore oollatis, sed civilis potestatis est definire qua3 
 sint Ecclesise jura, ac limites, intra quos eadem jura exercere 
 queat." — Syllabus v. 
 
 6. "Romani Pontifiees et Concilia oecumenica a liiniti- 
 bus suse potestatis recesserunt, jura Principum usurparunt, 
 atque etiam in rebus fidei et morum definiendis errarunt." — 
 Hid. xxiii. 
 
 7. " Ecclesia vis inferendse potestatem non habet, neque 
 potestatem uUam temporalem directam vel indirectam." — 
 Ibid. xxiy. 
 
 8. "Prseter potestatem episcopatui inhserentem, alia est 
 attributa temporalis potestas a civili imperio vel expresse vel 
 tacite concessa, revocanda propterea, cum libuerit, a civili 
 imperio." — Hid. xxv. 
 
 9. " Ecclesise et personarum ecclesiasticarum immunitas a 
 jure civili ortum habuit." — Ibid. xxx. 
 
 10. "In conflictu legum utriusque potestatis, jus civile 
 prse valet." — Ibid. xlii. 
 
 11. " Catholicis viris probari potest ea juventutis insti- 
 tuendse ratio, quae sit a Catholica fide et ab Ecclesise potestate 
 sejuncta, quseque rerum dumtaxat, naturalium scientiam ao 
 terreufe socialis vitse fines tantummodo vel saltem primarium 
 spectet." — Ibid, xlviii. 
 
 12. " Philosophicarum rerum morumque scientia, itemque 
 civiles leges possunt et debent a divina et ecclesiastiea auc- 
 toritate declinare." — Ibid. Ivii. 
 
 13. " Matrimonii sacramentum non est nisi contractui acces- 
 sorium ab eoque separabile, ipsumque sacramentum in una 
 tantum nuptiali benedictione situm est." — Ibid. Ixvi. 
 
 " Yi contractus mere civilis potest inter Ohristianos con- 
 stare veri nominis matrimonium ; falsumque est, aut contrac- 
 tum matrimonii inter Christianos semper esse sacramentum, 
 aut nullum esse contractum, si sacramentum excludatur," 
 — Ibid. Ixxiii. 
 
 14. " De temporalis regni cum spirituali compatibilitate 
 
APPENDICES. 69 
 
 disputant inter se Christianaa et Catholicse Ecclesise filii." — 
 Syllabus Ixxv. 
 
 15. "Abrogatio civilis imperii, quo Apostolica Sedes poti- 
 tur, ad Ecclesise libertatem felicitatemque vel maxima con- 
 duceret." — Ibid. Ixxvi. 
 
 16. " ^tate hac nostra non amplius expedit religionem 
 Catholicam haberi tanquam unicam status religionem, cssteris 
 quibuscumque cultibus exclusis." — Ibid. Ixxvii. 
 
 17. "Ilinc laudabiliter in quibusdam Catliolici nominis 
 regionibus lege cautum est, ut hominibus illuc immigrantibus 
 liceat publicum proprii cujusque cultus exercitium habere." 
 — Ibid. Ixxviii. 
 
 18. " Eomanus Pontifex potest ac debet cum progressu, 
 cum liberalismo et cum recenti civilitate sese reconciliare et 
 componere." — Ibid. Ixxx. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 I have contented myself with a minimum of citation from 
 the documents of the period before Emancipation. Their full 
 effect can only be gathered by such as are acquainted with, 
 or will take the trouble to refer largely to the originals. It 
 is worth while, however, to cite the following passage from 
 Bishop Doyle, as it may convey, through the indignation it 
 expresses, an idea of the amplitude of the assurances which 
 had been (as I believe, most honestly and sincerely) given. 
 
 " There is no justice, my Lord, in thus condemning us. 
 Such conduct on the part of our opponents creates in our 
 bosoms a sense of wrong being done to us ; it exhausts our 
 patience, it provokes our indignation, and prevents us from 
 reiterating our efforts to obtain a more impartial hearing. 
 We are tempted, in such cases as these, to attribute unfair 
 motives to those who differ from us, as we cannot conceive 
 
70 APPENDICES. 
 
 how men gifted with intelligence can fail to discover truths 
 so plainly demonstrated as, 
 
 " That our faith or our allegiance is not regulated by any 
 such doctrines as those imputed to us ; 
 
 " That our duties to the Government of our country are 
 not influenced nor affected by any Bulls or practices of 
 Popes ; 
 
 " That these duties are to be learned by us, as by every 
 other class of His Majesty's subjects, from the Gospel, from 
 the reason given to us by God, from that love of country 
 which nature has implanted in our hearts, and from those 
 constitutional maxims, which are as well understood, and as 
 highly appreciated, by Catholics of the present day, as by 
 their ancestors, who founded them with Alfred, or secured 
 them at Eunnymede." — Boyle's ' Essay on the Catholic Claims^ 
 London, 1826, p. 38. 
 
 The same general tone, as in 1826, was maintained in the 
 answers of the witnesses from Maynooth College before the 
 Commission of 1855. See, for example, pp. 132, 161-4, 
 272-3, 275, 361, 370-5, 381-2, 394-6, 405. The Commission 
 reported (p. 64), "We see no reason to believe that there 
 has been any disloyalty in the teaching of the College, or 
 any disposition to impair the obligations of an unreserved 
 allegiance to your Majesty.' 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 Compare the recent and ominous forecasting of the future 
 European policy of the British Crown, in an Article from a 
 Eomish Periodical for the current month, which has direct 
 relation to these matters, and which has every appearance of 
 proceeding from authority. 
 
 " Surely in any European complication, such as may any 
 day arise, nay, such as must ere long arise, from the natural 
 
APPENDICES. 71 
 
 graTitation of the forces, which are for the moment kept in 
 check and truce by the necessity of preparation for their 
 inevitable collision, it may very well be that the future 
 prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle, and 
 that the side which she may take may be determined, not 
 either by justice or interest, but hy a passionate resolve to 
 keep up the Italian kingdom at any hazard'' — The ' Month ' 
 for November, 1874: 'Mr. Gladstone's Durham Letter,' 
 p. 265. 
 
 This is a remarkable disclosure. With whom could 
 England be brought into conflict by any disposition she 
 might feel to keep up the Italian kingdom ? Considered as 
 States, both Austria and France are in complete harmony 
 with Italy. But it is plain that Italy has some enemy ; and 
 the writers of the ' Month ' appear to know who it is. 
 
 APPENDIX D. 
 
 Notice has been taken, both in this country and abroad, of 
 the apparent inertness of public men, and of at least one 
 British Administration, with respect to the subject of these 
 pages. See Friedberg, ' G-ranzen zwischen Staat und Kirche,' 
 Abtheilung iii. pp. 755-6 ; and the Preface to the Fifth 
 Volume of Mr. Greenwood's elaborate, able, and judicial work, 
 entitled ' Cathedra Petri,' p. iv. 
 
 " If there be any chance of such a revival, it would become 
 our political leaders to look more closely into the peculiarities 
 of a system, which denies the right of the subject to freedom 
 of thought and action upon matters most material to his 
 civil and religious welfare. There is no mode of ascertaining 
 the spirit and tendency of great institutions but in a careful 
 study of their history. The writer is profoundly impressed 
 with the conviction that our political instructors have wholly 
 
72 APPENDICES. 
 
 neglected this important duty : or, which is perhaps worse, 
 left it in the hands of a class of persons whose zeal has outrun 
 their discretion, and who have sought rather to engage the 
 prejudices than the judgment of their hearers in the cause 
 they have, no doubt sincerely, at heart. 
 
 LONDON : PBIKTED BT WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET 
 AND CHARING CROSS, 
 
THE VATICAN DECEEES 
 
LPSDON ; PRINTED BY 
 
 SPOTTISWOODK AND CO., HEW-STRplKT. SQUABK 
 
 AND PAULIAMEST STREET 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 IN THEIR BEARING ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLllGIANCE 
 
 HENRY EDWARD 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 1875 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
PBEFACE 
 
 A TASK both difficult and unlocked for has sud- 
 denly fallen to my lot ; that is, to gain a fair 
 hearing on subjects about which the opinions, 
 and still more the feelings, of so many men art 
 not only adverse, but even hostile. I must, 
 therefore, ask for patience from those who may 
 read these pages. 
 
 The topics here treated have not been 
 chosen by me. They have been raised by Mr. 
 Gladstone, and perhaps, in all the range of 
 Eeligion and Politics, none can be found more 
 delicate, more beset with misconceptions, or 
 more prejudged by old traditionary beliefs and 
 antipathies. Some of them, too, are of an 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 odious kind ; others revive memories we would 
 fain forget. And yet, if Mr. Gladstone's appeal 
 to me is to be answered, treated they must be. 
 My reply to the argument of the Expostulation 
 on the Vatican Council will be found in the 
 first, second, and fifth chapters ; but as Mr. 
 Gladstone has brought into his impeachment 
 the present conflict in Germany, and has 
 reviewed his own conduct in respect to the 
 Revolution in Italy, I have felt myself obliged 
 to follow him. This I have done in the third 
 and fourth chapters. Apart fi*om this reason, 
 I felt myself bound to do so by the terms of the 
 two letters printed at the opening of the follow- 
 ing pages. I hold myself pledged to justify their 
 contents. Moreover, these two topics fall within 
 the outline of the subject treated by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, which is, the relation of the Supreme 
 Spiritual Power of the Head of the Christian 
 Church to the Civil Powers of all countries. So 
 much for the matter of these pages. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 As for the manner, if it be faulty, the fault 
 is mine : and yet there ought to be no fault 
 imputed where there has been no intention to 
 wound or to offend, I can say with truth that, 
 to avoid offence, I have weighed my words, and 
 if there be one still found which ought not 
 to have been written, I wish it to be blotted 
 out. The subject-matter is beyond my con- 
 trol. I can blot out words, but I cannot blot 
 out truths. What I believe to be truth, that 
 I have said in the clearest and calmest words 
 that I could find to give to it adequate 
 expression. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 iNTROriUCTION 1 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. Meaning and Effect of the Vatican Deceees . 10 
 
 II. The Eelations of the Spiritual and Civil Powers 43 
 III. Aggressions of the Civil Power . . . .97 
 
 IV. True and False Progress • , • ■ • • 128 
 
 V. The Motive of the Definition .... 166 
 
 Conclusion 176 
 
 Appendices 181 
 
THE VATICAN DEOEEES 
 
 IN THEIR BEAEING , ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his Expostulation with the Catholics 
 of the British Empire on the Decrees of the Vatican 
 Council, writes as follows :■ — 
 
 ' England is entitled to ask and to know in what way 
 the obedience required by -the Pope and the Council of the 
 Vatican is to be reconciled with the integrity of Civil 
 Allegiance.' '■ 
 
 -to'^ 
 
 When I read these words, I at once recognised the 
 right of the English people, speaking by its legitimate 
 authorities, to know from me what I believe and what 
 I teach ; but in recognising this right I am compelled 
 to decline to answer before any other tribunal, or to 
 any other interrogator. If, therefore, I take the oc- 
 casion of any such interrogation, I do not address 
 
 * The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. 
 By die Eight Hon. W. E. Gladstone, p. 43. 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 myself to those who make it, but to the justice and to 
 the good sense of the Christian people of this country. 
 Mr. Gladstone followed up this demand upon his 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen by an elaborate argument 
 to prove that it is impossible for Catholics, since the 
 Vatican Council, to be loyal except at the cost of 
 their fidelity to the Council, or faithful to the Council 
 except at the cost of their loyalty to their country. 
 I therefore considered it to be my duty to lose no time 
 in making the subjoined declaration in all our principal 
 journals. 
 
 ' Sir, — The gravity of the subject on which I address 
 yon, affecting, as it must, every Catholic in the British 
 Empire, will, I hope, obtain from your courtesy the publi- 
 cation of this letter. 
 
 * This morning I received a copy of a pamphlet, entitled 
 " The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance." 
 I find in it a direct appeal to myself, both for the office I 
 hold and for the writings I have published. I gladly 
 acknowledge the duty that lies upon me for both those 
 reasons. I am bound by the office I bear not to suffer a 
 day to pass without repelling from the Catholics of this 
 country the lightest imputation upon their loyalty ; and, 
 for my teaching, I am ready to show that the principles 
 I have ever taught are beyond impeachment upon that 
 score. 
 
 'It is true, indeed, that in page 57 of the pamphlet 
 Mr. Gladstone expresses his belief "that many of his 
 Eoman Catholic friends and fellow-countrymen are, to say 
 the least of it, as good citizens as himself." But as the 
 whole pamphlet is an elaborate arguuient to prove that 
 the teaching of the Vatican Council renders it impossible 
 
INTKODUCTION. 3 
 
 for them to be so, I cannot accept this grateful acknow- 
 ledgment, which implies that they are good citizens 
 because they are at variance with the Catholic Church. 
 
 ' I should be wanting in duty to the Catholics of this 
 country and to myself if I did not give a prompt contra- 
 diction to this statement, and if I did not with equal 
 promptness affirm that the loyalty of our civil allegiance 
 is, not in spite of the teaching of the Catholic Church, but 
 because of it. 
 
 ' The sum of the argument in the pamphlet just pub- 
 lished to the world is this : — That by the Vatican Decrees 
 such a change has been made in the relations of Catholics 
 to the civil power of States, that it is no longer possible 
 for them to render the same undivided civil allegiance as 
 it was possible for Catholics to render before the promul- 
 gation of those Decrees. 
 
 'In answer to this it is for the present sufficient to 
 affirm — 
 
 ' 1. That the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or tittle 
 changed either the obligations or the conditions of civil 
 allegiance. 
 
 ' 2. That the civil allegiance of Catholics is as undi- 
 vided as that of all Christians, and of all men who 
 recognise a Divine or natural moral law. 
 
 ' 3. That the civil allegiance of no man is unlimited ; 
 and therefore the civil allegiance of all men who believe 
 in God, or are governed by conscience, is in that sense 
 divided. 
 
 ' 4. In this sense, and in no other, can it be said with 
 truth that the civil allegiance of Catholics is divided. The 
 civil allegiance of every Christian man in England is 
 limited by conscience and the law of God ; and the civil 
 allegiance of Catholics is limited neither less nor more. 
 
 ' The public peace of the British Empire has been 
 
 b2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 consolidated in the last half century by the elimination of 
 religious conflicts and inequalities from our laws. The 
 Empire of Germany might have been equally peaceful 
 and stable if its statesmen had not been tempted in an 
 evil hour to rake up the old fires of religious disunion. 
 The hand of one man, more than any other, threw this 
 torch of discord into the German Empire. The history of 
 Germany will record the name of Dr. Ignatius von 
 DoUinger as the author of this national evil. I lament, 
 not only to read the name, but to trace the arguments of 
 Dr. von DoUinger in the pamphlet before me. May God 
 preserve these kingdoms from the public and private 
 calamities which are visibly impending over Germany. 
 The author of the pamphlet, in his first line, assures us 
 that his " purpose is not polemical but pacific." I am 
 sorry that so good an intention should have so widely erred 
 in the selection of the means. 
 
 ' But my purpose is neither to criticise nor to contro- 
 vert. My desire and my duty, as an Englishman, as a 
 Catholic, and as a pastor, is to claim for my flock and for 
 mj'self a civil allegiance as pure, as true, and as loyal as is 
 rendered by the distinguished author of the pamphlet, or 
 by any subject of the British Empire. 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 'November 7, 1874.' 
 
 Subsequently, in reply to questions proposed to me, 
 I further wrote as follows : — 
 
 To the Editor of The New York Herald. 
 
 ' Dear Sir, — In answer to your question as to my state- 
 ment about the Vatican Council, I reply as follows : 
 
 ' I asserted that the Vatican Decrees have not changed 
 by a jot or a tittle the obligations or conditions of the civil 
 obedience of Catholics towards the Civil Powers. The 
 
INTRODUCTIOir. 5 
 
 whole of Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet hangs on the contrary- 
 assertion ; and falls with it. In proof of my assertion I 
 add: — 
 
 ' 1. That the Infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine 
 of Divine Faith before the Vatican Council was held. In 
 the second and third parts of a book called " Petri Privi- 
 legium " (Longmans, 1871), I have given more than 
 sufficient evidence of this assertion. 
 
 ' 2. That the Vatican Council simply declared an old 
 truth, and made no new dogma. 
 
 ' 3. That the position of Catholics therefore in respect 
 to civil allegiance, since the Vatican Council, is precisely 
 what it was before it. 
 
 ' 4. That the Civil Powers of the Christian world have 
 hitherto stood in peaceful relation with an Infallible 
 Church, and that relation has been often recognised and 
 declared by the Church in its Councils. The Vatican 
 Council had, therefore, no new matter to treat in this 
 point. 
 
 ' 5. That the Vatican Council has made no decree 
 whatever on the subject of the Civil Powers, nor on civil 
 allegiance. 
 
 ' This subject was not so much as proposed. The civil 
 obedience of Catholics rests upon the natural law, and the 
 revealed law of God. Society is founded in nature, and 
 subjects lire bound in all things lawful to obey their rulers. 
 Society, when Christian, has higher sanctions, and subjects 
 are bound to obey rulers for conscience sake, and because 
 the Powers that be are ordained of God. Of all these things 
 .the Vatican Decrees can have changed nothing because they 
 have touched nothing. Mr. Gladstone's whole argument 
 hangs upon an erroneous assertion, into which I can only 
 suppose he has been misled by his misplaced trust in Dr. 
 DoUinger and some of his friends. 
 
6' INTRODUCTION, 
 
 * On public and private grounds I deeply lament this 
 act of imprudence, and but £or my belief in Mr. Glad- 
 stone's sincerity I should say this act of injustice. I 
 lament it, as an act out of all harmony and proportion to 
 a great statesman's life, and as the first event that has 
 overcast a friendship of forty-five years. His whole public 
 life has hitherto consolidated the Christian and civil peace 
 of these kingdoms. This act, unless the good providence 
 of God and the good sense of Englishmen avert it, may 
 wreck more than the work of Mr. Gladstone's public 
 career, and at the end of a long life may tarnish a great 
 name. 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 ' Westminster, Nov. 10, 1874.' 
 
 Having thus directly contradicted the main error of 
 Mr. Gladstone's argument, I thought it my duty to wait. 
 I was certain that two things would follow : the one, 
 that far better answers than any that I could make 
 would be promptly made ; the other, that certain 
 nominal Catholics, who upon other occasions have 
 done the same, would write letters to the newspapers. 
 
 Both events have come to pass. 
 
 The Bishops of Birmingham, Clifton, and Salford 
 have abundantly pointed out the mistakes into which 
 Mr. Gladstone has fallen on the subject of the Vatican 
 Council; and have fully vindicated the loyalty of 
 Catholics. 
 
 The handful of nominal Catholics have done their 
 work; and those who hoped to find or to make a 
 division among Catholics have been disappointed. It 
 is now seen that those who reject the Vatican Council 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 may be told oa our fingers, and the Catholic Church 
 has openly passed sentence on them. 
 
 Having made these declarations, I might have 
 remained silent ; but as in my first letter I im- 
 plied that I was prepared to justify what I had 
 asserted, I gave notice that I would do so. Having 
 passed my word, I will keep it ; and in keeping 
 it I will endeavour to deserve again the acknow- 
 ledgment Mr. Gladstone has already made. He 
 says that, whatever comes, so far as I am con- 
 cerned, it will not be ' without due notice.' I will 
 be equally outspoken now ; not because he has 
 challenged it, but because, so far as I know, I have 
 always tried. to speak out. In all these years of strife 
 I have never consciously kept back, or explained 
 away, any doctrine of the Catholic Church. I will 
 not begin to do so now, when my time is nearly run. 
 I am afraid that in these pages I shall seem to 
 obtrude myself too often, and too much. If any think 
 so, I would ask them to remember that Mr. Glad- 
 stone has laid me under this necessity in these three 
 ways : — 
 
 1. He has made me the representative of the 
 
 Catholic doctrine since 1870, as Bishop 
 Doyle, he says, was in better days. 
 
 2. He has quoted my writings four times in 
 
 censure. 
 
 3. He has appealed to me as ' Head of the 
 
 Papal Church in England ;' I may also add 
 
5 JNTBODTJCTION. 
 
 as ' TKe Oracle.' My words, however, shall 
 not be ambiguous. 
 
 The two letters given above contain four assertions. 
 
 First, that the Decrees of the Vatican Council 
 have changed nothing in respect to the civil obedience 
 of Catholics. 
 
 Secondly, that their civil obedience is neither 
 more nor less divided than that of other men. 
 
 Thirdly, that the relations of the Spiritual and 
 Civil Powers have been fixed from time immemorial, 
 and are therefore after the Vatican Council what they 
 were before. 
 
 Fourthly, that the contest now waging abroad 
 began in a malevolent and mischievous intrigue to 
 instigate the Civil Powers to oppress and persecute ■ 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
 The two first propositions shall be treated in the 
 first chapter, the third in the second chapter, and the 
 last in the third. 
 
 T will therefore endeavour to prove the following 
 propositions, which cover all the assertions I have 
 made : — 
 
 1. That the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or 
 tittle changed either the obligations or the 
 conditions of Civil Allegiance. 
 
 2. That the relations of the Catholic Church to 
 the Civil Powers of the world have been 
 immutably fixed from the beginning, inas- 
 
INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 much as they arise out o the Divine Con- 
 stitution of the Church, and out of the Civil 
 Society of the natural order. 
 That any collisions now existing have been 
 brought on by changes, not on the part of 
 the Catholic Church, much less of the 
 Vatican Council, but on the part of the 
 Civil Powers, and that by reason of a 
 systematic conspiracy againt the Holy See. 
 That by these changes and collisions the 
 Civil Powers of Europe are destroying their 
 own stability. 
 
 That the motive of the Vatican Council 
 in defining the Infallibility of the Roman 
 Pontiflf was not any temporal policy, nor was 
 it for any temporal end ; but that it defined 
 that truth in the face of all temporal dangers, 
 in order to guard the Divine deposit of 
 Christianity, and to vindicate the divine 
 certainty of faith. 
 
10 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE VATICAN DECEEES. 
 
 I. In setting out to prove my first proposition — 
 namely, ' that the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or 
 tittle changed either the obligations or the conditions of 
 Civil Allegiance ' — I find myself undertaking to prove 
 a negative. The onus of proving that the Vatican 
 Decrees have made a change in our civil allegiance 
 rests upon those who affirm it. Till they ofier proof 
 we might remain silent. It would be enough for us 
 to answer that the Vatican Council in its Dogmatic 
 Constitution on the Church has simply affirmed the 
 revealed doctrine of the Spiritual Primacy, and of the 
 Infallibility of the Visible Head of the Christian 
 Church ; that the relations of this Primacy to the Civil 
 Powers are in no way treated ; and that the civil 
 obedience of subjects is left precisely as and where 
 it was before the Vatican Council was convened. 
 
 (1) However, I will first examine what proofs have 
 been oflFered to show that the Vatican Council has 
 made the alleged change ; and I will then give positive 
 evidence to show what the Vatican Council has done. 
 From these things it will be seen that it has neither 
 changed, nor added to, nor taken away anything from 
 the doctrine and discipline of the Church, but has 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 11 
 
 only defined what has been believed and practised 
 from the beginning. 
 
 The arguments to prove a change are two. 
 
 First. Mr. Gladstone has argued i'rom the third 
 chapter of the Constitution on the Roman Pontiff, 
 that his powers have received a great extension. Mr. 
 Gladstone, so far as I am aware, is the first and only- 
 person who has ever ventured on this statement. 
 
 His argument is as foUows : — 
 
 He dwells with no little amplification upon the 
 ' introduction of the remarkable phrase,' ' ad discipli- 
 nam et regimen Ecclesise,' into the third chapter; that 
 is, 'non solum in rebus qute ad fidem et mores 
 pertinent, sed etiam in iis qua) ad disciplinam et 
 regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffus£e perti- 
 nent.' He says, ' Absolute obedience, it is boldly 
 declared, is due to the Pope, at the peril of salvation, 
 not only in faith and in morals, but in all things 
 which concern the discipline and government of 
 the Church ' (p. 41). Submission in faith and morals 
 is ' abject ' enough, but ' in discipline and govern- 
 ment ' too is i ntolerable. ' Why did the astute 
 contrivers of this tangled scheme,' &c. ... (p. 39). 
 ' The work is now truly complete ' (p. 40). This he 
 calls ' the new version of the principles of the Papal 
 Church.' When I read this, 1 asked, ' Is it possible 
 that Mr. Gladstone should think this to be anything 
 new? What does he conceive the Primacy of Rome 
 to mean? With what eyes has he read history? 
 
12 MEAKING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 Can he have read the tradition of the Cathohc Church?' 
 As one of ' the astute contrivers/ I will answer that 
 these words were introduced because the Pontiffs 
 and Councils of the Church have always so used 
 them. They may be ' remarkable ' and ' new ' to 
 Mr. Gladstone, but they are old as the Catholic 
 Church. I give the first proofs which come to 
 hand. 
 
 Nicholas I., in the year 863, in a Council at Rome, 
 enacted: ' Si quis dogmata, mandata, interdicta, sanc- 
 tiones vel decreta pro Catholica fide, pro ecclesiastica 
 disciplina, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendati- 
 one sceleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel 
 futurorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolic^e Praaside 
 salubriter promulgata contempserit : Anathema sit.'^ 
 This Avas an ' iron gripe ' not less ' formidable ' than 
 the third chapter of the Vatican Constitution. 
 
 It may be said, perhaps, that this was only a 
 Pontiff in his own cause ; or only a Roman Council. 
 
 But this Canon was recognised in the Eighth 
 General Council held at Constantinople in 869.^ 
 
 Innocent III. may be no authority with Mr. 
 Gladstone ; but he says, what every Pontiff before 
 him and after him has said, ' Nos qui sumus ad 
 regimen Universalis Ecclesias, superna dispositione 
 vocati.' ^ 
 
 ' Labbe, Concil. torn. x. p. 238, ed. Ven. 1730. 
 
 * Ibid. torn. X. p. 633. See Petri Privilegium, 2nd part, p. 81. 
 
 ' Corpus Juris Canon. Deeret. Greg. lib. ii. cap. xiii. Novit. 
 
THE VATICAN WECEEES. 13 
 
 Again, Sixtus IV., in 1471, writes : ' Ad Univer- 
 salis Ecclesise regimen divina disponente dementia 
 vocatis,' ^ &c. 
 
 If this be not enough, we have the Council of 
 Florence, in 1442, defining of the Roman Pontiff 
 that ' Ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac guber- 
 nandi Universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jesu 
 Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse,' ^ 
 
 Finally the Council of Trent says : — ' TJnde merito 
 Pontifices Maxkni pro Suprema potestate sibi in 
 Ecclesia universa tradita,' ' &c. 
 
 I refrain from quoting Canonists and Theologians 
 who use this language as to regimen and discipline. 
 It needed no astuteness to transcribe the well-known 
 traditional language of the Cathohc Church. It is as 
 universal in our law books as the forms of the Courts 
 at Westminster. The Vatican Council has left the 
 authority of the Pontiff precisely where it found it. 
 The whole, therefore, of Mr. Gladstone's argument 
 falls with the misapprehension on which it was based. 
 
 What, then, is there new in the Vatican Council? 
 What is to be thought of the rhetorical description of 
 ' Merovingian monarchs and Carlovingian mayors,' 
 but that the distinguished author is out of his depth ? 
 The Pope had at all times the power to rule the whole 
 Church not only in faith and morals, but also in all 
 
 ' Corpus Juris Canon. Extrav. Comm. lib. i. tit. ix. cap. i. 
 ^ Labbe, Condi, torn, xviii. p. 527, ed. Ven. 1732. 
 ^ Sess. xiv. cap. vii. 
 
14 MEAXIXG AXD EFFECT OF 
 
 things which pertain to discipline and government, 
 and that whether infallibly or not. 
 
 Such is literally the only attempt made by Mr. 
 Gladstone to justify his assertions. But what has this 
 to do with Civil Allegiance ? There is not a syllable 
 on the subject, there is not a pi'oposition which can be 
 twisted or tortured into such a meaning. The govern- 
 ment of the Church, as here spoken of, is purely and 
 strictly the Spiritual government of souls, both pastors 
 and people,, as it Avas exercised in the first three hun- 
 dred vears before any Christian State existed. 
 
 But next, if the Yatican Council has not spoken 
 of the Civil Powers, nevertheless it has defined that the 
 Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible: this defini- 
 tion, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts 
 infallible, the Bull Unam Sanctam included; and, by 
 prospective action, will make all similar acts in future 
 binding upon the conscience. 
 
 Certainly this is true. But what is there new in 
 this? The Vatican Council did not make the Pope 
 infallible. "Was he not infallible before the Council? 
 He is, therefore, not more infallible after it than before. 
 If a handful of writers, here and there, denied his 
 infallibility, the whole Church affirmed it. Proof of 
 this shall be given in its place. For the present, I 
 affirm that all acts ex cathedra, such as the Bull Unam 
 Sanctam, the Bull Unigenitus, the Bull Auctorem 
 Fidei, and the like, were held to be infallible as fully 
 before the Vatican Council as now. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 15 
 
 To this it will be said, ' Be it so ; but nobody 
 was bound under Anathema to believe them.' I 
 answer that it is not the Anathema that generates faith. 
 The infallibility of the Head of the Church was a 
 doctrine of Divine Faith before it was defined in 
 1870, and to deny it was held by grave authorities to 
 be at least proximate to heresy, if not actually here- 
 tical.^ The Vatican Council has put this beyond 
 question; but it was never lawful to Catholics to deny 
 the infallibility of a Pontifical act ex cathedra. It is 
 from simple want of knowledge that men suppose 
 every doctrine not defined to be an open question. 
 The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church has 
 never been defined to this day. Will any man pretend 
 that this is an open question among Catholics? The 
 infallibility of the Pope was likewise never defined, but 
 it was never an open question. Even the Jansenists 
 did not venture to deny it, and the evasion of some 
 of them, who gave ' obsequious silence ' instead of 
 internal assent to Pontifical acts, was condemned by 
 Clement XI. The definition of the Vatican Council 
 has made no change whatsoever except in the case of 
 those who denied or doubted of this doctrine. 'No 
 difiference, therefore, whatsoever has been made in 
 the state of those who believed it. If the integrity of 
 their civil allegiance was unimpeded before 1870, it is 
 unimpeded now. But Mr, Gladstone admits that it 
 
 1 Petri Privilegium, part i. pp. 61-6G, and notes. 
 
16 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 was unimpeded before. His contention is that it is 
 impeded now. But this is self-contradictory, for 
 they believed the same doctrine of infallibility both 
 then and now. If Mr. Gladstone means that the 
 Vatican Council has made a difference for the few who 
 denied the doctrine, and for the authors of Janus and 
 Quirirms, and the professors of ' obsequious silence,' 
 his contention is most true. But then he must change 
 his whole position. The title of his pamphlet must 
 be amended and stand, ' The Vatican Decrees in 
 their Bearing on the Civil Allegiance of those who 
 before 1870 denied the Infallibility of the Pope.' 
 But this would ruin his case; for he would have 
 admitted the loyalty of Catholics who always believed 
 it before the definition was made. 
 
 We are next told that there are some twelve 
 theories of what is an act ex cathedra. We have been 
 also told that there are twenty. But how is it that Mr. 
 ■Gladstone did not see that by this the whole force of his 
 ■argument is shaken? If the definition has left it so 
 uncertain what acts are, and what acts are not, ex 
 ■cathedra, who shall hold himself bound to obedience ? 
 Are the eighty condemnations indicated in the 
 Syllabus ex cathedra? By this showing it is 12 to 1 
 that they may not be. It is an axiom in morals 
 ' Lex dubia non obligat.' But if it be doubtful 
 whether the Syllabus is ex cathedra, I am not 
 bound to receive it with interior assent. Again, Mr. 
 •Gladstone thinks to aggravate the case by adding that 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 17 
 
 the Pope is to be the ultimate judge of what acts are 
 ex cathedra. And who else should be ? Ejus est inter- 
 pretari cujus est condere is a principle of all law. Mr. 
 Gladstone has been acting upon it all his life. But, 
 perhaps it may be said, why did not the Council put 
 beyond doubt what acts are ex cathedra'^ Well, the 
 ■Council has done so, as I hope to show ; and has done 
 it with as great precision as the subject matter will 
 admit. It has given five tests, or conditions, by 
 which an act ex cathedra may be distinguished. 
 
 But it may be said that doubts may still exist, 
 and that doubts may still be raised as to this or 
 that Pontifical act whether it be ex cathedra or not. 
 Surely common sense would say, consult the authority 
 which made the law; the legislator is always at hand, 
 always ready to explain his own meaning, and to 
 ■define the limits of his intention. If there be any 
 thing unreasonable in this, all jurisprudence, in- 
 cluding the British Constitution, labours under the 
 same uncertainty, or rather the same inevitable im- 
 perfection. 
 
 I am surprised that Mr. Gladstone should have 
 quoted the second paragraph of the chapter in the 
 Vatican Constitution ; and that he should have passed 
 ■over the fourth paragraph, in which there are indeed 
 the words ' potestatis stecularis placito.' This is the 
 ■only recognition of secular powers in the whole Con- 
 stitution. In that paragraph two things are affirmed: 
 
 c 
 
18 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 the one that the free exercise of the supreme Spiritua} 
 power of the Head of the Christian Church may neither 
 be intercepted, nor hindered, nor excluded from any 
 part of the Church by any human authority ; and, 
 secondly, that all such acts of his Spiritual power are 
 valid and complete in themselves, and need, for that 
 end, no confirmation or placitum of any other autho- 
 rity. This independence is claimed for Christianity 
 by every one who believes in a revelation. Here is 
 indeed a reference to Civil Powers; but, lest the 
 Vatican Council should be held guilty of such innova- 
 tions, I will add that such was the contention of St. 
 Thomas of Canterbuiy against Henry II. in the case 
 of the Constitutions of Clarendon, which were not 
 ' cursed,' as Mr. Gladstone delicately expresses it, 
 but condemned by Alexander III. in the year 1164. 
 This, then, has not changed the Civil Allegiance of 
 Catholics since 1870. 
 
 But I am not undertaking to prove a negative. I 
 hope that I have shown that the evidence oifered 
 to prove that the Council has made the alleged change 
 is nil. I af&rm, then, once more that the Vatican 
 Council has not touched the question of Civil Alle- 
 giance, that it has not by a jot or a tittle changed the 
 relations in which the Church has ever stood to the 
 Civil Powers ; and that, therefore, the CivU Allegiance 
 of Catholics is as full, perfect, and complete since 
 the Council as it was before. These are aifirma- 
 
THE VATICAN DECIIEES. 19 
 
 tions capable of proof, and before I have done I hope 
 to prove them. For the present it will be enough to 
 give the reason why the Vatican Council did not 
 touch the question of the relations of the Church to 
 the Civil Powers. The reason is simple. It intended 
 not to touch them, until it could treat them fully and 
 as a whole. And it has carefully adhered to its 
 intention. I will also give the reason why it has 
 been so confidently asserted that the Council did 
 touch the CivU Powers. It is because certain persons, 
 a year before the Council met, resolved to say so. 
 They wrote the book Janus to prove it ; they pub- 
 lished circulars and pamphlets before and during the 
 CouncU to re-assert it. They first prophesied that 
 the Council would interfere with the Civil Powers, 
 anr" now they write scientific history to prove that it 
 Las done so. I am not writing at random ; I care- 
 fully collected at the time their books, pamphlets, 
 and articles. I read them punctually, and bound 
 them up into volumes, which are now before me. Mr. 
 Gladstone has reproduced their arguments. But for 
 this systematic agitation before the Council, no one, I 
 am convinced, would have found a shadow of cause 
 for it in its Decrees. Now, that I may not seem to 
 write this as prompted by the events of the present 
 moment, I will repeat what I published in the year 
 
 1869, before the Council assembled, and in the year 
 
 1870, after the Council was suspended. 
 
20 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 Before the Council met I published these words :' — 
 
 'Whilst I was ■writing these lines a document has 
 appeared purporting to be the answers of the Theological 
 Faculty of Munich to the questions of the Bavarian 
 Oovernment. 
 
 ' The questions and the answers are so evidently con- 
 certed, if not written by the same hand, and the animus of 
 the document so evidently hostile to the Holy See, and so 
 visibly intended to create embarrassments for the supreme 
 authority of the Church, both in respect to its past acts 
 and also in respect to the future action of the (Ecumenical 
 Council, that I cannot pass it over. But, in speaking of it, 
 I am compelled, for the first time, to break silence on a 
 danger which has for some years been growing in its 
 proportions, and, I fear I must add, in its attitude of 
 menace. The answers of the University of Munich are 
 visibly intended to excite fear and alarm in the Civil Powers 
 of Europe, and thereby to obstruct the action of the 
 (Ecumenical Council if it should judge it to be opportune 
 to define the Infallibility of the Pope. The answers are 
 also intended to create an impression that the theological 
 proofs of the doctrine are inadequate, and its definition 
 beset with uncertainty and obscurity. In a word, the 
 whole correspondence is a transparent effort to obstruct 
 the freedom .of the (Ecumenical Council on the subject of 
 the Infallibility of the Pontiff; or, if that doctrine be 
 defined, to instigate the Civil Governments to assume a 
 liostile attitude towards the Holy See. And this comes in 
 the name of liberty, and from those who teU us that the 
 Council will not be free. 
 
 'I shall take the liberty, without further words, of 
 
 ' ' The (Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Eoman 
 Pontiff,' Petri Privilegmm, partii. pp. 131-5. (Longmans, 1871.) 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 21 
 
 dismissing the Bavarian Government from our thoughts. 
 But I must declare, with much regret, that this Munich 
 document appears to me to be seditious. 
 
 ' Facts like these give a certain warrant to the assertion 
 and prophecies of politicians and Protestants. They prove 
 that in the Catholic Church there is a school at variance 
 with the doctrinal teaching of the Holy See in matters 
 which are not of faith. But they do not reveal how small 
 that school is. Its centre would seem to be at Munich. It 
 has, both in France and England, a small number of 
 adherents. They are active, they correspond, and for the 
 most part write anonymously. It would be difficult to 
 describe its tenets, for none of its followers seem to be 
 agreed in all points. Some hold the Infallibility of the 
 Pope, and some defend the Temporal Power. Nothing 
 appears to be common to all, except an animus of opposition 
 to the acts of the Holy See in matters outside the faith. 
 
 'In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was 
 made to render impossible, as it was confidently but vainly 
 thought, the definition of the Infallibility of the Pontiff by 
 reviving the monotonous controversy about Pope Honorius. 
 Later, we were told of I know not what combination of 
 exalted personages in Prance for the same end. It is 
 certain that these symptoms are not sporadic and discon- 
 nected, but in mutual understanding and with a common 
 piirpose. The anti-Catholic press has eagerly encouraged 
 this school of thought. If a Catholic can be found out of 
 tune with authority by half a note, he is at once extolled for 
 nnequalled learning and irrefragable logic. The anti- 
 Catholic journals are at his service, and he vents his 
 opposition to the common opinions of the Church by- 
 writing against them anonymously. Sad as this is, it is 
 not formidable. It has effect almost alone upon those who 
 are not Catholic. Upon Catholics its effect is hardly 
 appreciable ; on the Theological Schools of the Church it 
 
22 3IEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 will have little influence ; upon tlie (Ecumenical Council it 
 can have none. 
 
 'I can hardly persuade myself to believe that the 
 University of Munich does not know that the relations 
 between the Pope, even supposed . to be infallible, and the 
 Civil Powers have been long since precisely defined in the 
 same acts which defined the relations between the Church, 
 known to be infallible, and the Civil Authority. Twelve 
 Synods or Councils, two of them (Ecumenical, have long 
 ago laid down these relations of the Spiritual and Civil 
 Powers.' If the Pope were declared to be infallible 
 to-morrow, it would in no way affect those relations. 
 
 ' We may be sure . . . that this intellectual disaffec- 
 tion, of which, in these last days, we have had in Prance 
 a new and mournful example, will have no influence upon 
 either the (Ecumenical Council or the policy of the Great 
 Powers of Europe. , They will not meddle with specula- 
 tions of theological or historical critics. They know too 
 well that they cannot do in the nineteenth century what 
 was done in the sixteenth and the seventeenth. 
 
 'The attempt to put a pressure upon the General 
 Council, if it have any effect upon those who are subject 
 to certain governments, would have no effect but to rouse 
 a just indignation in the Episcopate of the Church through- 
 out the world. They hold their jurisdiction from a higher 
 fountain, and they recognise no superior in their office of 
 Judges of Doctrine, save only the Vicar of Jesus Christ. 
 This preliminary meddling has already awakened a sense 
 of profound responsibility and an inflexible resolution to 
 allow no pressure or influence, or menace or intrigue, to 
 «ast so much as a shadow across their fidelity to the Divine 
 Head of the Church and to His Vicar upon earth. 
 
 ' Bellarm. Opuscula adv. Barclaium, p. 845, ed. Col. 1617. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 23 
 
 'Moreover, we live in days wlien the "Eegium 
 Placitum " and " Exequaturs " and " Arrets " of Parlia- 
 ment in Spiritual things are simply dead. It may have 
 been possible to hinder the promulgation of the Council of 
 Trent ; it is impossible to hinder the promulgation of the 
 Council of the Vatican. The very liberty of vrhich men 
 ai'e proud will publish it. Ten thousand presses in aU 
 lands will promulgate every act of the Church and of the 
 Pontiff, in the face of aU Civil Powers. Once published, 
 these acts enter the domain of faith and conscience, and 
 no human legislation, no civil authority, can efface 
 them. The two hundred millions of Catholics will know 
 the Decrees of the Vatican Council ; and to know them is 
 to obey. The Council will ask no civil enforcement, and 
 it will need no civil aid. The Great Powers of Europe 
 have long declared that the conscience of men is free from 
 civU constraint. They will not stultify their own declara- 
 tions by attempting to restrain the acts of the Vatican 
 Council. The guardians and defenders of the principles 
 of 1789 ought to rise as one man against all who should 
 so violate the base of the political society in France. 
 What attitude lesser Governments may take is of lesser 
 moment.' 
 
 (2) I will now state positively what the Council has 
 <iefined on the subject of the Koman Pontiff. The 
 history then of the Definition of the Infallibility is 
 as follows : — 
 
 1. Two Schemata, as they were called, or treatises, 
 had been prepared : the one on the nature of the 
 Church ; the other on its relations to the Civil State. 
 
 The first alone came before the Council ; the 
 second has never yet been so much as discussed. 
 
24 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 In the schema on the nature of the Church, its In- 
 fallibility was treated ; but the Infallibility of its Head 
 was not so much as mentioned. His Primacy and 
 authority alone were treated. In the end, the chapter 
 relating to the Primacy and authority was taken out, 
 and subdivided into four. The subject of the Infalli- 
 bility of the Roman Pontiff was then introduced. 
 
 The reasons for this change of order were given 
 in 1870, as follows : — 
 
 In all theological treatises, excepting indeed one 
 or two of great authority, it had been usual to treat 
 of the Body of the Church before treating of its Head. 
 The reason of this would appear to be that in the 
 exposition of doctrine the logical order was the more 
 obvious ; and to the faithful, in the first formation of 
 the Church, the Body of the Church was known before 
 its Head. We might have expected that the Council 
 would have followed the same method. It is, therefore,, 
 all the more remarkable that the Council inverted that 
 order, and defined the prerogative of the Head before 
 it treated of the constitution and endowments of the 
 Body. And this, which was brought about by the 
 pressure of special events, is not without significance. 
 The schools of the Church have followed the logical 
 order ; but the Church in Council, when for the first 
 time it began to treat of its own constitution and 
 authority, changed the method, and, like the Divine 
 Architect of the Church, began in the historical order, 
 with the foundation and Head of the Church. Our 
 
THE VATICAN DECEEES. 25 
 
 Divine Lord first chose Cephas, and invested him 
 with the primacy over the Apostles. Upon this rock 
 all were built, and from him the whole unity and 
 authority of the Church took its rise. To Peter 
 alone first was given the plenitude of jurisdiction 
 and of iufallible authority. Afterwards, the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost was shared with him by all the 
 Apostles. From him and through him therefore all 
 began. For which cause a clear and precise con- 
 ception of his Primacy and privilege is necessary to a 
 clear and precise conception of the Church. Unless 
 it be first distinctly apprehended, the doctrine of the 
 Church will be always proportionately obscure. The 
 doctrine of the Church does not determine the doc- 
 trine of the Primacy, but the doctrine of the Primacy 
 does precisely determine the doctrine of the Church. 
 In beginning, therefore, with the Head, the Council 
 has followed our Lord's example, both in teaching 
 and in fact; and in this will be found one of the 
 causes of the singular and luminous precision with 
 which the Council of the Vatican has, in one brief 
 Constitution, excluded the well-known errors on the 
 Primacy and Infallibility of the Koman Pontiff'. 
 
 The reasons which prevailed to bring about this- 
 change of method were not only those which de- 
 monstrated generally the opportuneness of defining 
 the doctrine, but those also which showed specially 
 the necessity of bi'inging on the question while as 
 yet the Council was in the fulness of its numbers. 
 
26 aiEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 It was obvious that the length of time consumed in 
 the discussion, reformation, and voting of the Schemata 
 was such that, unless the Constitution De Romano 
 Pontifice were brought on immediately after Easter, 
 it could not be finished before the setting in of sum- 
 mer should compel the bishops to disperse. Once 
 dispersed, it was obvious they could never again re- 
 assemble in so large a number. Many who with great 
 earnestness desired to share the blessing and the 
 grace of extinguishing the most dangerous error which 
 for two centuries had disturbed and harassed the faith- 
 ful, would have been compelled to go back to their 
 distant sees and missions, never to return. It was 
 obviously of the first moment that such a question 
 should be discussed and decided, not, as we should 
 have been told, in holes and corners, or by a handful 
 of bishops, or by a faction, or by a clique, but by the 
 largest possible assembly of the Catholic Episcopate. 
 All other questions, on which little divergence of 
 opinion existed, might well be left to a smaller number 
 of bishops ; but a doctrine which for so long had vexed 
 both pastors and people, the defining, not the truth, of 
 which was contested by a numerous and organised 
 opposition, needed to be treated and affirmed by the 
 most extensive deliberation of the bishops of the 
 Catholic Church, Add to this the many perils which 
 hung over the continuance of the Council, of which I 
 need but give one example. The outbreak of a war 
 might have rendered the definition impossible. And 
 
THE VxVTICAN DECREES. 27 
 
 in fact tlie Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was 
 defined on tlie eighteenth of July, and war was officially 
 declared on the following day. 
 
 With these and many other contingencies fully 
 before them, those who believed that the definition 
 was, not only opportune, but necessary for the unity of 
 the Church and of the Faith, urged its immediate 
 discussion. Events justified their foresight. The 
 debate was prolonged into the heats of July, when, 
 by mutual consent, the opposing sides withdrew from 
 a further prolonging of the contest, and closed the 
 discussion. If it had not been already protracted 
 beyond all hmits of reasonable debate — for not less 
 than a hundred fathers in the general and special 
 discussions had spoken chiefly, if not alone, of Infalli- 
 bility — ^it could not so have ended. Both sides were 
 convinced that the matter was exhausted.^ 
 
 2. In order to demonstrate, if possible, more abun- 
 dantly that the Vatican Council has not so much as 
 touched the relations of the Church to the Civil 
 Power, I will give a brief analysis of its Definitions in 
 what is called the First Dogmatic Constitution on the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 It is, as I have said, a portion of the Schema or 
 treatise on the Church, taken out and enlarged into 
 a Constitution by itself. There would have been only 
 one Constitution treating of both the Body and the 
 
 ' Petri Privilegium, part iii. pp. 51-54. 
 
28 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 Head of the Church, Now there are two. The first, 
 treating of the Head, has been completed ; the second, 
 treating of the Body, yet remains. 
 
 Now of the First Constitution there are four 
 chapters. 
 
 The first treats of the Institution of the Apostohc 
 Primacy in Saint Peter. The sum of it is that Our 
 Lord appointed Peter to be Head of the whole 
 Church, and gave him immediately a Primacy, not of 
 honour only, but of jurisdiction. There is here not a 
 word of anything but the Pastoral or Spiritual power. 
 
 The second declares the Primacy to be perpetual. 
 It affirms two things : the one that Peter has a per- 
 petual line of successors, and that the Eoman Pontiff 
 is the successor of Peter in that Primacy. 
 
 The third affirms the jurisdiction of the Roman 
 Pontiff to be full and supreme in all things of 
 faith and morals, and also in discipline and govern- 
 ment of the Church; and that this jurisdiction is 
 ordinary and immediate over all Churches and persons. 
 
 The fourth chapter treats of the Infallibility of the 
 Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Roman 
 Pontiff. This chapter affirms that a Divine assistance 
 was given to Peter, and in Peter to his successors 
 for the discharge of their supreme office. It affirms 
 also that this is a tradition received from the begin- 
 ning of the Christian Faith. They, therefore, who 
 tell us that the Vatican Council has brought in a 
 new doctrine show that they do not know what the 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 29 
 
 Vatican Council has said, and what it is that they must 
 refute before their charge of innovation can be 
 listened to. 
 
 Now it is to be observed : 
 
 1. That the Council declares that the Roman 
 
 Pontiff, speaking ex cathedra^ has a Divine 
 assistance which preserves him from error. 
 
 2. That he speaks ex cathedra when he speaks 
 
 under these five conditions : (1) as Supreme 
 Teacher (_2) to the whole Church. (3) De- 
 fining a doctrine (4) to be held by the whole 
 Church (5) in faith and morals. 
 If disputants and controversialists had read and 
 mastered these five conditions, we should have been 
 spared much senseless clamour. 
 
 3. Lastly, it is to be observed that the Council has 
 not defined the limit of the phrase ' faith and morals.' 
 This well-known formula is plain and intelligible. 
 The deposit committed to the Church is the Revela- 
 tion of Divine Truth, and of the Divine Law. The 
 Church is the guardian and witness, the interpreter 
 and the expositor, of the Truth and of the Law of God. 
 Such is the meaning of 'faith and morals.' It is a 
 formula well known, perfectly clear, sufficiently pre- 
 cise for our spiritual and moral life. If questions may 
 be raised about the limits of faith and morals, it is 
 because questions may be raised about anything ; and 
 questions will always be raised by those who love 
 contention against the Catholic Church more than 
 
30 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 they love either faith or morals. All argument 
 against the Vatican Council as to the limits or extent 
 of this formula is so much labour lost. It has not 
 so much as touched the extent or the limits. 
 
 Such, then, is the whole of the first Constitution 
 De Ecclesia Christi. It does not contain a syllable of 
 the relation of this Primacy to the Civil or Political 
 State, except to say that no human authority is needed 
 for the validity of its acts, nor may any human power 
 hinder their exercise. But these • are truths as old 
 as the day when St, Peter said before the council in 
 Jerusalem, 'If it be just, in the sight of God, to 
 hear you rather than God, judge ye.' ^ I hope, then, 
 I have justified my assertion that the Vatican Council 
 has not changed by a jot or a tittle the civil alle- 
 giance of Catholics. It is as free and perfect now 
 as it was before. 
 
 As I have affirmed that the doctrine of the In- 
 fallibility of the Head of the Church was a doctrine 
 of Divine Faith before the Council, and that the denial 
 of it was confined to a small school of writers, I 
 might be expected here to offer the historical proof 
 of this assertion. 
 
 But I have already done so in the year 1869, 
 before the Council assembled. I would therefore 
 refer to the second part of ' Petri Privilegium ' ^ for, 
 as I believe, a sufficient proof, I will, however, in 
 few words give the outline of what was then said. 
 
 Acts iv. 19. 2 Part ii. pp. G3-107. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 31 
 
 It is acknowledged by the adversaries of the 
 doctrine that from the Council of Constance in 1414 
 to this day the doctrine has been the predominant 
 belief of the Church. I gave evidence of its existence 
 from the Council of Constance upwards to the Council 
 of Chalcedon in 445. 
 
 Next I traced the history of the growth of the 
 opinions adverse to the Infallibility of the Roman 
 Pontiff from the Council of Constance to the year 
 1682, when it was, for the first time, reduced to 
 formula by an assembly of French ecclesiastics under 
 the influence of Louis XIY. 
 
 Lastly, I showed how this formula was no sooner 
 published than it was condemned in every Catholic 
 country by bishops and universities, and by the Holy 
 See. The sum of the evidence for the first period 
 was then given as follows : — 
 
 Gallicanism is no more than a transient and 
 modern opinion, which arose in France, without war- 
 rant or antecedents in the ancient theological schools 
 of the French Church ; a royal theology, as suddenly 
 developed and as parenthetical as the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, afiirmed only by a small number out of the 
 numerous Episcopate of France, indignantly rejected 
 by many of them ; condemned in succession by three 
 Pontiffs ; declared by the Universities of Louvain and 
 Douai to be erroneous ; retracted by the bishops of 
 France ; condemned by Spain, Hungary, and other 
 countries; and condemned over again in the Bull 
 Auctorevi Fidei. 
 
52 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 From this evidence it is certain : — 
 
 1. That Gallicanism has no warrant in the 
 doctrinal practice or tradition of the Church, 
 either in France or at large, in the thousand 
 3'ears preceding the Council of Constance. 
 
 2. That the first traces of Gallicanism are to 
 be found about the time of that Council. 
 
 3. That after the Council of Constance they 
 were rapidly and almost altogether effaced 
 from the theology of the Church in France, 
 until their revival in 1682. 
 
 4. That the Articles of 1682 were conceived by 
 Jansenists, and carried through by political 
 and oppressive means contrary to the sense 
 of the Church in France. 
 
 5. That the theological faculties of the Sor- 
 bonne, and of France generally, nobly 
 resisted and refused to teach them.^ 
 
 But Gallicanism was the only formal interruption 
 of the universal belief of the Church in the Infalli- 
 bility of its Head, The Vatican Council extinguished 
 this modern error. 
 
 II. Having thus far offered proof of the fitst propo- 
 sition in my first letter, I will now go on to the second. 
 
 I there affirmed that the Civil Allegiance of 
 Catholics is as undivided as that of all Christians, and 
 of all men who recognise a divine or natural moral law. 
 
 ' Petri Privilegium, part ii. p. 56. 
 
THE VATICAN DECEEES. 33 
 
 Mr. Gladstone requires of us ' solid and undivided 
 allegiance.' ^ 
 
 I must confess to some surprise at this demand. 
 The allegiance of every moral being is ' divided,' that 
 is, twofold; not, indeed, in the same matter nor on the 
 same plane, but in two spheres, and on a higher and a 
 lower level, so that no collision is possible, except by- 
 some deviation or excess. Every moral being is under 
 two authorities — human and divine. The child is 
 under the authority of parents, and the authority of 
 Ood; the subject is under the authority of the Civil 
 State, and the Divine authority of natural or revealed 
 religion. Unless we claim Infallibility for the State, 
 its acts must be liable to revision, and to resistance by 
 natural conscience. An unlimited obedience to 
 parents or to States would generate a race of un- 
 limited monsters. Surely these are truisms. Our 
 Lord Himself taught this division when He said, 
 ' Render therefore to Caasar the things that are Ctesar's, 
 and to God the things that are God's.' But this all 
 men admit when they think. Unfortunately, when 
 they attack the Catholic Church or the Vatican 
 Council they seldom think much. 
 
 Put the objection in this form : ' We non-Catho- 
 lics acknowledge two authorities as you Catholics 
 do. Our allegiance to the civil law is revised and 
 checked by our consciences, guided by the light of 
 
 » P. 44. 
 
34 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 nature and by the light of revelation. We refuse to 
 receive religious doctrine or discipline from the State. 
 We allow the Society of Friends, for conscience 
 sake, to refuse to take an oath of allegiance, and 
 even to fight for their country, for conscience sake ; 
 and yet these two are among the natural duties 
 of subjects which the civU authority may most 
 justly both require and enforce. We therefore 
 leave every man free to refuse obedience to civil 
 laws if his conscience so demands of him. But you 
 Catholics put your conscience into the hands of the 
 Pope. You are bound to follow his interpretation of 
 the civil law J and he tells you when your conscience 
 ought to refuse obedience whether you see it or not; 
 worse than this, the Pope may wrongly interpret our 
 civil laws, or he may even so interpret them as to serve 
 his own interests ; and then your moral and mental 
 freedom is at the mercy of another. You must choose 
 between your religion and your country.' I think I 
 have not understated the argument of our adversaries. 
 To this the answer is twofold. First, that the non- 
 Catholic doctrine is more dangerous to the Civil State 
 than the Catholic. If any individual conscience may 
 dispense itself from civil obedience, then almost all 
 men will obey only ' for wrath' and not for ' conscience 
 sake.'^ And such, in fact, is the condition of milHons 
 of men. I could wish that the mental state of the 
 
 ' Eom. xiii. 5. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 35 
 
 masses were better known. I wish it were possible 
 to ascertain, by letting down a tbermometer into the 
 deep sea of our population, what notions remain of 
 loyalty or allegiance. No doubt, in an insular popu- 
 lation like ours, the traditional custom of inert con- 
 formity with law maintains a passive compliance which 
 passes for Civil Allegiance. But take the population of 
 countries where the so-called rights of the political 
 conscience of individuals have had their legitimate 
 development. A law is a law so far as it is accepted; 
 a man is bound by the law so far as he had a hand in 
 making it. If you once admit that the ultimate deci- 
 sion as to civil obedience is in the individual, each poli- 
 tical conscience is a law-giver and a law to itself. You 
 cannot fly principles with a string as boys fly kites. 
 Once enunciated they have nothing to control them. 
 If every man has the ultimate right of refusing obedi- 
 ence to the law upon the dictates of his own conscience, 
 then we are in a state of unlimited license, which is 
 potentially a state of unlimited revolution. And 
 such, in truth, since 1789 has been the state of the west 
 of Europe. It is in a state of chronic instability and 
 continuous change. More than forty revolutions have 
 sprung from this essential lawlessness. 
 
 Secondly, according to the doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, the rights of individual conscience are se- 
 cured not only against external coercion, but against 
 its own aberrations. The obedience of Catholic sub- 
 jects to their Civil Rulers is a positive precept of 
 
36 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 religion. The rising against legitimate authority is 
 forbidden as the sin of rebellion. The Syllabus has 
 condemned the propositions : — 
 
 'Authority is nothing else but the result of 
 
 numerical superiority and material force.' — 
 
 Prop. 60. 
 ' It is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate 
 
 Princes, and also to rebel against them.' — 
 
 Prop. 63. 
 The political conscience of Catholics is not left to the 
 individual judgment alone. It is guided by the whole 
 Christian morality, by the greatest system of ethical 
 legislation the world has ever seen, the Canon , Law 
 and the Moral Theology of the Catholic Church. Not 
 only all capricious and wilful resistances of the CivU 
 Law, but all unreasonable and contentious disobedi- 
 ence is condemned by its authority. It is a doctrine 
 of faith that legitimate sovereignty exists not only in 
 the unity of the Church, but outside of the same ; and 
 not only among Christian nations, but also among the 
 nations that are not Christian.^ Moreover, that to all 
 such legitimate sovereigns subjects are bound by 
 the Divine Law^ to render obedience in all lawful 
 things. It is certain, therefore, that Catholics are 
 bound to Civil Allegiance by every bond, natural 
 and supernatural, as absolutely as their non-Catholic 
 fellow-countrymen ; and, I must add, more explicitly. 
 
 ' Kom. xiii. 1-4. » St. Peter ii. 13-15. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 37 
 
 And further, that they can hardly be reduced to the 
 necessity of using their private judgment as to the 
 lawfulness of obeying any law. In all matters of 
 ordinary civil and political hfe, the duty of Catholics is 
 already defined by a whole code which enforces 
 obedience for conscience sake. In the rare case of 
 doubt which may arise in times of religious persecu- 
 tion, political revolution, civil wars, or wars of suc- 
 cession. Catholic and non- Catholic subjects are alike in 
 this, — they are both compelled to choose their side. 
 But the non-Catholic subject has hardly law or judge 
 to aid his conscience : the Catholic has both. He has 
 the whole traditional moral law of Christendom, which 
 has formed and perpetuated the civil and political 
 order of the modern world, and he has a multitude 
 of principles, maxims, and precedents on which to 
 form his own judgment. Finally, if he be unable so 
 to do, he can seek for guidance from an authority 
 which the whole Christian world once believed to be 
 the highest judicial tribunal and the source of its 
 civil order and stability. And is this to place ' his 
 mental and moral freedom at the mercy of another ? ' 
 As much as, and no more than, we place ourselves ' at 
 the mercy ' of the Christian Church for our salvation. 
 Let us take an example. It is certain, by the natural 
 and Divine Law, that every man may defend himself, 
 and that every people has the right of self-defence. 
 On this all defensive wars are justifiable. But if the 
 Sovereign levy war upon his people, have they the 
 
38 MEANING AND EFFECT OE 
 
 right of self-defence ? Beyond all doubt. But at what 
 point may they take up arms? and what amount of 
 oppression justifies recourse to resistance ? For the 
 non-Catholic there can only be these answers. ' He 
 must go by the light of his own conscience, or he must 
 be guided by the judgment of the greater number, or by 
 the wiser heads of his nation.' But the greater number 
 may not be the wiser; and to judge who are the 
 wiser throws the judgment once more upon himself. 
 The Catholic subject would use his own judgment, 
 and the judgment of his countrymen, but he would 
 not hold himself at liberty to take up arms unless 
 the Christian law confirmed the justice of his 
 judgment. But from whom is this judgment to 
 be sought? He would ask it of a,U those of whom 
 he asks counsel in the salvation of his soul. If this 
 is to be at the mercy of another, we are all at the 
 mercy of those whom we believe to be wiser than 
 ourselves. ■ 
 
 Let us take an example. The Italian people 
 haye been for twenty years spectators of a revolution 
 which has overthrown the Sovereigns of Naples and 
 Tuscany. I will ask two questions. First, would any 
 Italian place himself at the mercy of another, if he 
 should ask of the head of his religion what course as 
 a Christian he ought to pursue? 
 
 And, secondly, what has been the action of the 
 Pope in respect to the Italian revolution? He has 
 said that to co-operate in the Italian revolution is not 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 39 
 
 lawful. Surely, if Italiajis are free to form their 
 conscience on the doctrines of the revolution, they are 
 equally free to form their conscience on the doctrines 
 of their religion. To deny this is to have two 
 weights and two measures. The non-Catholic 
 theory tells us that the conscience of subjects is the 
 ultimate test. Be it so ; my conscience tells me that 
 it is right to obey my religion rather than the 
 revolution. If this be a divided allegiance, then it 
 is Clu*istianity which has introduced it, and not the 
 Church. It was our Lord Himself who, by institut- 
 ing His Church, separated for ever the two powers, 
 Civil and Spiritual, thereby redeeming the conscience 
 and the religion of men from the dominion of princes, 
 and conferring upon the Civil Power the consecration 
 by which it is confirmed, and the higher law by 
 which its sphere is defined. It is all this, and 
 not^ 'our old friend the deposing power alone,' 
 which I have described as teaching obedience 
 to subjects and moderation to piinces.^ In all 
 conflicts between the Civil and Spiritual, the 
 consciences of Christians will be decided by the 
 Christian law. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, this part of the subject by 
 reasserting: — 
 
 1. That the relations of the Church to the State 
 
 ' Expostulation, p. 52. 
 
 " Temporal Power o/ the Pope, pp. 44-46, second ed. 1862. 
 
40 MEANING AND EFFECT OF 
 
 were never so much as proposed for discussion 
 in the Vatican Council. 
 
 2. That in its Constitutions or Definitions it has in 
 no way touched the subject. 
 
 3. That the Definitions of the Council are ' de- 
 
 claratory ' of doctrine already of Divine Faith, 
 and that no new ' enactment ' whatsoever was 
 made. 
 
 4. That the relations of the Church to the Civil 
 Power were left by the Vatican Council as they 
 
 ■ were known and declared by the Council of 
 Trent and all previous Councils. 
 I will therefore answer Mr. Gladstone's questions 
 in page 44 of his ' Expostulation.' He tells us that 
 'what is not wanted is vague and general assertion 
 of whatever kind, and howsoever sincere. What is 
 wanted, and that in the most specific form and in the 
 clearest terms, I take to be one of two things, that 
 is to say, either — 
 
 ' 1. A demonstration that neither in the name 
 of faith, nor in the name of morals, nor 
 in the name of the government or discipline 
 of the Church, is the Pope of Eome able, 
 by virtue of the powers asserted for him 
 by the Vatican decree, to make any claim 
 upon those who adhere to his communion of 
 such a nature as can impair the integrity of 
 their Civil allegiance ; or else, 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES. 41 
 
 * 2. That if, and when such claim iB made, it will 
 even, although resting on the definitions of the 
 Vatican, be repelled and rejected.' ^ 
 
 I have shown that the Pope is not able, by the 
 Vatican Council, to make any claim in the name of 
 faith, nor in the name of morals, nor in the name of 
 the government or discipline of the Church, which he 
 was not able to make before the Vatican CouncU 
 existed. 
 
 To Mr. Gladstone's first question, therefore, I 
 answer, that neither in virtue of the Vatican Decrees, 
 nor of any other decrees, nor of his supreme authority 
 as Head of the Christian Church, can the Pope make 
 any claim upon those who adhere to his communion 
 of such a nature as can impair the integrity of their 
 Civil Allegiance. 
 
 To his second question, therefore, the answer is 
 already given. I have no need to declare myself 
 ready to repel and reject that which the Pope cannot 
 do. He cannot do an act contrary to the Divine 
 Law; but to impair my Civil Allegiance would be 
 contrary to the Law of God. 
 
 It is strange to me that so acute a reasoner should 
 have begged the question, which is this: By whom 
 are the limits of Civil Allegiance to be determined? 
 If Mr. Gladstone should say by the State, I would 
 
 ' The Vatican Decrees, p. 44. 
 
42 MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE VATICAN DECREES. 
 
 ask — Does lie mean that tlie State is infallible in 
 morals? or that subjects have no conscience, or that 
 the State may coerce their conscience, or that the 
 State can create a morality which aU consciences 
 must obey? Some of these postulates are inevitably 
 assumed in his question, if it has any meaning. 
 
 My reasons for saying this will be seen in the fol- 
 lowing chapter. 
 
RELATIONS OIT THE SPIRITUAL AKD CIVIL POWERS. 43 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE RELATIONS OF THE SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 
 
 We will now go on to my second proposition, that 
 the relations of the Catholic Church to the Civil 
 Powers have been fixed immutably from the begin- 
 ning, because they arise out of the Divine constitu- 
 tion of the Church and of the Civil Society of the 
 natural order. 
 
 I. Inasmuch as the natural and civil society existed 
 before the foundation of the Christian Church, we will 
 begin with it ; and here my concessions, or rather my 
 assertions, will, I hope, satisfy all but Caisarists. 
 
 1. The civil society of men has God for its 
 Founder. It was created potentially in the creation 
 of man; and from him has been unfolded into actual 
 existence. The human family contains the first prin- 
 ciples and laws of authority, obedience, and order. 
 These three conditions of society ai'e of Divine origin ; 
 and they are €he constructive laws of all civil or 
 political society. 
 
 2. To the Civil Society of mankind supreme 
 authority is given immediately by God ; for a society 
 does not signify mere number, but number organised 
 by the laws and principles which its Divine Founder 
 implanted in the human family. Sovereignty, there- 
 
44 RELATIO^'S OF THE 
 
 fore, is given by God immediately to human society; 
 and mediately^ or mediante societate, to the person or 
 persons to whom society may commit its custody and 
 its exercise. When once the supreme power or 
 sovereignty has been committed by any society to a 
 king, or to consuls, or to a council, as the case may 
 be — for God has given no special form of Civil Govern- 
 ment — though it be not held by those who receive 
 it by any Divine right, as against the society which 
 gave it, nevertheless it has both a Divine sanction and 
 a Divine authority. For instance, it has the power of 
 life and death. God alone could give to man this 
 power over man. God gave it to man for self-defence. 
 It passes to society at large, which likewise has the 
 right of self-defence. It is committed by society to 
 its chief executive. But, inasmuch as the supreme 
 power is still given by God to the Civil Ruler, even 
 though it be mediately, it has a Divine sanction; and so 
 long as the Civil Ruler does not deviate from the end 
 of his existence, the society has no power to revoke its 
 act. For example : the Civil Ruler is for the defence 
 of the people ; but if he should make war upon the 
 people, the right of self-defence would justify resistance. 
 I am not now engaged in saying when or how; but 
 the right is undeniable. Manslaughter is not murder, 
 if it be in self-defence ; wars of defence are lawful ; 
 and just resistance to an unjust prince is not rebellion. 
 All this is founded upon the Divine sanctions of the 
 civil and political society of man, even in the order of 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 45 
 
 nature. It has, then, God for its Founder, for its 
 Legislator, and by His divine Providence for its 
 supreme Ruler. 
 
 3. The laws of such society are the laws of nature. 
 It is bound by the natural morality written on the 
 conscience and on the heart. The ethics which 
 govern men become politics in the government of 
 states. Politics are but the collective morals of 
 society. The Civil Ruler or Sovereign is bound by 
 the laws : the subject within the sphere of these laws 
 owes to him a civil allegiance. The Civil Ruler may 
 bind all subjects by an oath of allegiance. He may 
 call on all to bear arms for the safety of the State. 
 
 4. The State has for its end, not only the safety of 
 person and property, but, in its fullest sense, the 
 temporal happiness of man. Within the sphere of 
 natural morality, and in order to its end, the State is 
 supreme : and its power is from God. This is the 
 meaning of St. Paul's words : — 
 
 ' Let every soul be subject to higher powers : for there is 
 no power but from Grod; and those that are, are ordained of 
 God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God ; and they that resist, purchase to them- 
 selves damnation. . . . For he is God's minister to thee for 
 good. But if thou do that which is evU, fear, for he beareth 
 not the sword in vain : for he is God's minister, an avenger 
 to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore be 
 subject of necessity, not only for wrath but also for con- 
 science sake.' ' 
 
 ' Eomans xiii. 1-5. 
 
46 EELATIOXS OF THE 
 
 The State, then, is a perfect society, supreme within its 
 own sphere, and in order to its own end : but as that end 
 is not the highest end of man, so the State is not the 
 highest society among men; nor is it, beyond its 
 own sphere and end, supreme. I have drawn this 
 out in greater fulness to show that the Church is in 
 the highest degree conservative of all the natural 
 authority of rulers, and of the natural allegiance of 
 subjects. It is mere shallowness to say that between 
 the Civil authority, as Divinely founded in nature, and 
 the spiritual authority of the Church there can be 
 opposition. 
 
 Now, as to the Divine institution of the Civil 
 Society of the world and of its independence in all 
 things of the natural order, what I have already said 
 is enough. The laws of the order of nature are from 
 God. So long as a father exercises his domestic 
 authority according to the law of God, no other 
 authority can intervene to control or to hinder his 
 government. So likewise of the Prince or Sovereign 
 power, be it lodged in one or in many. There is no 
 authority upon earth which can depose a just sove- 
 reign or release such subjects from their obedience.^ 
 
 II. There is, however, another society, the end of 
 which is the eternal happiness of mankind. This also 
 has God for its Founder, and that immediately ; and it 
 
 ' ' Etiam nocentium potestas non est nisi a Deo.' — St. Augustine, 
 De Natura Boni contra Manich. cap. xxxii. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 47 
 
 has received from God its form and constitution, and 
 its rulers receive their authority immediately/ with a 
 special Divine sanction and authority, from God. 
 Two things follow at once from this : — 
 
 1. That the society which has for its end the 
 
 eternal happiness of man is of an order 
 higher than the society which aims only at 
 the natural happiness of man. 
 
 2. That as the temporal and the eternal happi- 
 ness of man are both ordered by Divine 
 laws, these two societies are, of neces- 
 sity, in essential conformity and harmony 
 with each other. Collision between them 
 can only be if either deviates from its 
 respective laws. 
 
 The natural society of man aims directly at the 
 temporal happiness of its subjects, but indirectly it 
 aims also at their eternal happiness : the supernatural 
 society aims directly at their eternal happiness, and 
 indirectly at their temporal happiness, but always in 
 so far only as their. temporal happiness is conducive 
 to their eternal end. 
 
 From this, again, two other corollaries follow : — 
 1. That the higher or supernatural society is 
 supreme because it has no other society, 
 above it or beyond it, with an end higher 
 than its own. 
 
 * Suarez, Defensio Fidei, lib. iii. cap. ii. sect. 5, 15, 16. 
 
48 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 2. That the office of the supernatural society 
 is to aid, direct, and perfect the natural 
 society; that its action upon it is always 
 in cedijicationem non in destructionem, inas- 
 much as it is governed by the same Divine 
 Lawgiver, and it is directed to an end 
 which includes and ensures the end of the 
 natural society also. 
 To put this briefly. The State has for its end 
 the temporal happiness of its subjects; the Church 
 has for its end their eternal happiness. In aiming 
 directly at temporal happiness, the State aims also 
 indirectly at the eternal ; for these things are promoted 
 by the same laws. In aiming at eternal happiness, 
 the Church also indirectly aims at the temporal 
 happiness of men. 
 
 III. The Divine Founder of the Christian Church 
 said : ' To thee I will give the keys of the kmgdom 
 of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
 shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' '^ 
 And again: 'All power is given to me in heaven 
 and in earth. Going therefore, teach aU nations,' . . . 
 'teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you.' ^ 
 
 If these two commissions do not confer upon the 
 Christian Church a supreme doctrinal authority, and 
 
 > St. Matthew xvi. 19, « Ibid. xxA^iii. 18, 19. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 49 
 
 a supreme judicial office, in respect to tlie moral law, 
 over all nations, and over all persons, both governors 
 and governed, I know not what words could suffice to 
 do so. 
 
 That authority and that office are directive and 
 preceptive, so long as Princes and their laws are in 
 conformity with the Christian law; and judicial, ratione 
 peccati, by reason of sin, whensoever they deviate 
 from it. 
 
 If any man deny this, he would thereby affirm 
 that Princes have no superior upon earth : which is 
 the doctrine of the heathen Ctesarism. 
 
 But no man will say that Princes have no 
 superior. It is unmeaning to say that they have no 
 superior but the law of God : for that is to play with 
 words. A law is no superior without an authority 
 to judge and to apply it. 
 
 To say that God is the sole Lawgiver of Princes 
 is a doctrine unknown, not only to the Catholic 
 Church, but to the Constitution of England. When 
 we say, as our old Jurists do, Non Rex facit legem, but 
 Lexfacit Regem, we mean that there is a will above the 
 King ; and that will is the Civil Society, which judges if 
 and when the King deviates from the law. But this 
 doctrine, unless it be tempered by vigorous restraint, is 
 •chronic revolution. What adequate restraint is there 
 but in a Divine authority higher than the natural 
 society of man ? 
 
 The Supreme Judicial Power of the Church has no 
 
 E 
 
50 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 jurisdiction over those that are not Christian; and the 
 entire weight of its authority, if it were applied at all 
 to such a state, would be applied to confirm the 
 natural rights of sovereignty and to enforce the 
 natural duty of allegiance: and that, upon the prin- 
 ciple that the supernatural power of the Chixrch is for 
 edification, not for destruction ; that is, to build up 
 and to perfect the order of nature, not to pull down 
 a stone in the symmetry of the natural society "of 
 man. St. Thomas says: 
 
 ' Power and authority are established by human right ; 
 the distinction between the faithful and those who do not 
 beheve is established by Divine right. But the Divine 
 right, which comes by grace, does not destroy the human 
 right, which is in the order of nature." 
 
 Let us suppose that the Sovereign Power -of a 
 heathen people were to make laws contrary to the 
 law of God, would the Church intervene to depose 
 such a sovereign? Certainly not, on the principle laid 
 down by the Apostle, ' What have I to do to judge 
 those that are without?'^ 
 
 Such a people is both individually and socially 
 outside the Divine jurisdiction of the Church. The 
 Church has therefore, in this respect, no commission to 
 discharge towards it except to convert it to Christianity. 
 
 But if it be the office of the Church to teach subjects 
 
 ' St. Thomas, 2du Mce, qucest. x. art. 10. 
 1 Ccr. V, 12. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWEBS. 51 
 
 to obey even Heathen Rulers, as the Apostle did, how 
 much more, in the case of Christian Princes and their 
 laws, is it the office of the Church to confirm, conse- 
 crate, and enforce by the sanctions of religion and of 
 conscience, of doctrine and of discipline, the whole 
 code of natural and political morality, and all laws 
 that are made in conformity with the same. 
 
 If Christian Princes and their laws deviate from 
 the law of God, the Church has authority from God to 
 judge of that deviation, and by all its powers to en- 
 force the correction of that departure from justice. 
 I do not see how any man who believes in the Reve- 
 lation of Christianity can dispute this assertion : and 
 to such alone I am at present speaking. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has quoted a passage from an 
 ' Essay on Caasarism and Ultramontanism,' iii which I 
 have claimed for the Church a supremacy in spiritual 
 things over the State, and have made this state- 
 ment : — 
 
 ' Any power whicib is independent and can alone fix the 
 limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the 
 limits of all other jurisdictions, is, *pso/acio, supreme. But 
 the Church of Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation — ■ 
 of faith and morals — is all this, or is nothing or worse than 
 nothing, an imposture and an usurpation; that is, it is 
 Christ or Antichrist." 
 
 It is hardly loyal to take the conclusion of a 
 
 ' Ccesarism and Ultramontanism, p. 36. 
 E 2 
 
52 KELATIOXS OF THE 
 
 syllogism witliout the premises. In the very page 
 before this quotation I had said : — 
 
 'In any question as to the competence of the two 
 powers, either there must be some judge to decide what 
 does and what does not fall within their respective spheres, 
 or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to per- 
 petual conflict. But who can define what is or is not 
 within the jurisdiction of the Ghurch in faith and morals, 
 except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and 
 morals contains, and how far it extends ? And surely it is 
 not enough that such a judge should guess or opine, or 
 pronounce upon doubtful evidence, or with an uncertain 
 knowledge. Such a sentence would be, not an end of 
 contention, but a beginning and a renewal of strife. 
 
 ' It is clear that the Civil Power cannot define how far 
 the circumference of faith and morals extends. If it could, 
 it would be invested with one of the supernatural endow- 
 ments of the Church. To do tliis it must know the whole 
 deposit of explicit and implicit faith ; or, in other words, 
 it must be the guardian of the Christian revelation. Now, 
 no Christian, nor any man of sound mind, claims this for 
 
 the Civil Power If, then, the Civil Power be not 
 
 competent to decide the limits of the Spiritual Power, and 
 if the Spiritual Power can define with a Divine certainty its 
 own limits, it is evidently supreme. Or, in other words, the 
 Spiritual Power knows with Divine certainty the limits of 
 its own jurisdiction ; and it knows therefore the limits and 
 the competence of the CivU Power. It is thereby in matters 
 of religion and conscience supreme.' ' 
 
 If the Church cannot fix the limits of its juris- 
 diction, then either nobody can or the State must. 
 
 Ccesarism and Ultramontanisin, pp. 34, 35. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 53 
 
 But the State cannot unless it claim to be the 
 depository and expositor of the Christian Revelation. 
 Therefore it is the Church or nobody. This last 
 supposition leads to chaos. Now if this be rejected, 
 the Church alone can : and if the Church can fix the 
 limits of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the limits of 
 all other jurisdiction ; at least, so far as to warn it 
 off its own domain. But this was my conclusion; 
 and though I have seen it held up to odium, I have 
 not yet seen it answered. 
 
 But the Church being the highest society, and 
 independent of all others, is supreme over them, in 
 so far as the eternal happiness of men is involved. 
 
 From this, again, two consequences follow : — 
 
 1. First, that in all things which are purely 
 temporal, and lie extra jinem Ecclesiai, 
 outside of the end of the Church, it neither 
 claims nor has jurisdiction. 
 
 2. Secondly, that in all things which promote, 
 or hinder, the eternal happiness of men, 
 the Church has a power to judge and to 
 enforce. 
 
 IV. Such propositions are no sooner enunciated 
 than we are met by a tumult of voices, such as those 
 of Janus, Quirinus — and I lament to detect the tones 
 of a voice, hitherto heard in behalf of the authority 
 of Christianity and of the Christian Church, — afiirm- 
 ing that the Church of Rome and its Pontifi^s claim 
 
54 RELATIONS OP THE 
 
 supreme temporal ^ power, and that direct, over all 
 Temporal Princes and things ; to be used at their 
 discretion even to the deposing o£ Kings, to the 
 absolution of subjects from allegiance, to the em- 
 ployment of foi'ce, imprisonment, torture, and death. 
 If such be the state of our highest minds, we 
 cannot regret that this discussion has been forced 
 upon us. It has come not by oiu- act. It has arisen 
 in its time appointed. It will for awhile raise alarm 
 and suspicion ; it will kindle animosity and encou- 
 rage bigotry: but it will manifest the truth with 
 a wider light than England has seen for three 
 hundred years. I will therefore freely and frankly 
 enter upon this debate ; and, in order to be clear, 
 I will treat the subject under the following pro- 
 positions : — 
 
 1. The authority of Princes and the allegiance of 
 subjects in the Civil State of nature is of 
 Divine ordinance; and therefore, so long as 
 Princes and their laws are in conformity to 
 the law of God, the Church has no power or 
 jurisdiction against them, nor over them. 
 
 2. If Princes and their laws deviate from the law 
 of Grod, the Church has authority from God 
 to judge of that deviation, and to oblige to its 
 correction. 
 
 3. The authority which the Church has from 
 
 ' Expostulation, p. 27. 
 
SPIEITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 55 
 
 God for this end is not temporal^ but spiv' 
 itual. 
 
 4. This spiritual authority is not direct in its 
 incidence on temporal things, but only in- 
 direct : that is to say, it directly promotes its 
 own spiritual end ; it indirectly condemns and 
 declares not binding on the conscience such 
 temporal laws as deviate from the law of God, 
 and therefore impede or render impossible the 
 attainment of the eternal happiness of man. 
 
 5. This spiritual authority is inherent in the 
 
 Divine constitution and commission of the 
 Church ; but its exercise in the world depends 
 on certain moral and material conditions, by 
 which alone its exercise is rendered either 
 possible or just, 
 I have affirmed that the relations of the Catholic 
 Church to the Civil Powers are fixed primarily by the 
 Divine constitution of the Church and of the Civil 
 Society of men. But it is also true that these rela- 
 tions have been declared by the Church in acts 
 and decrees which are of infallible authority. Such, 
 for instance, is the Bull of Boniface VIII., TJnam 
 Sanctam. As this has become the text and centre of 
 the whole controversy at this moment, we will fully 
 treat of it. This Bull, then, was beyond aU doubt an 
 act ex cathedra. It was also confirmed by Leo X. in 
 the Fifth Lateran (Ecumenical Council. Whatever 
 definition, therefore, is to be found in this Bull is to 
 
56 KELATIONS OF THE 
 
 be received as of faith. Let it be noted that the 
 Unam Sanctam does not depend upon the Vatican 
 Council for its infallible authority. It was from the 
 date of its publication an infallible act, obliging all 
 Catholics to receive it with interior assent. Doctrines 
 identical with those of the Unam Sanctam had been 
 declared in two OEcumenical Councils — namely, in the 
 Fourth Lateran in 1215, and the First of Lyons in 
 1245.^ On this ground, therefore, I have affirmed 
 that the relations of the Spiritual and Civil Powers 
 were immutably fixed before the Yatican Council 
 met, and that they have been in no way changed 
 by it. 
 
 V. We wUl now examine, (1) the complete text of 
 the Unam Sanctam ; (2) the interpretations of its 
 assailants and its defenders; (3) the interpretation 
 which is of obligation on all Catholics. 
 
 1. The Bull was published by Boniface VIIL, ia 
 1302, during the contest with Philip le Bel of 
 France. 
 
 Before the Bull was published, the Regaiists or 
 partisans of the King declared that the Pope had, 
 claimed, as Mr. Gladstone also supposes, to be 
 supreme over the King, both in spiritual and in 
 temporal things. The Chancellor Flotte made this 
 assertion in the year 1301, at Paris, in the Church 
 of Notre Dame. The cardinals sent by Boniface 
 
 * Bellarmin. De Potest. Papce, in pra?f. p. 844, Cologne, 1G17. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS, 57 
 
 declared that the Pope made no sucli claim ; that he 
 claimed no temporal, but only a spiritual power.^ 
 Nevertheless this prejudice, once created, before the 
 publication of the Unani Sanctam, ensured its being 
 misinterpreted when it was issued. Boniface, by the 
 Bull Ausculta Fill, had promptly exposed this mis- 
 interpretation. But the prejudice was already esta- 
 blished.^ 
 
 I will now give the whole text of the Bull, before 
 commenting upon it. It runs as follows : — 
 
 ' We are bound to believe and to hold, by the obligation 
 of faith, one Holy Church, Catholic and also Apostolic ; 
 and this (Church )- we firmly believe and in simplicity 
 confess : out of which there is neither salvation nor remis- 
 sion of sins. As the Bridegroom declares in the Canticles, 
 " One is my dove, my perfect one, she is the only one of 
 her mother, the chosen of her that bore her:"^ wbo repre- 
 sents the one mystical Bpdy, the Head of which is Christ ; 
 and the Head of Christ is God. In which (the one 
 Church) there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.'' For 
 in the time of the Flood the ark of Noe was one, prefiguring 
 the one Church, which was finished in one cubit,® and had 
 one governor and ruler, that is Noe ; outside of which we 
 read that all things subsisting upon earth were destroyed. 
 This also we venerate as one, as the Lord says in the 
 Prophet, " Deliver, God, my soul from the sword : my 
 only one from the hand of the dog."" 
 
 ' For He prayed for the soul, that is, for Himself; for 
 
 ' Dcillinger's Church History, vol. iv. p. 90. ^ Ihld. p. 01. 
 
 * Cant. vi. 8. ^ Ephesians iv. 5. ^ Genesis vi. IC. 
 
 * Psalm xxi. 21. 
 
58 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 the Head together with the Body : by which Body He 
 designated the one only Church, because of the unity of the 
 Bridegroom, of the Faith, of the Sacraments, and of the 
 charity of the Church. This is that coat of the Lord 
 without seam,^ which was not rent but went by lot. There- 
 fore of thfit one and only Church there is one body and one 
 Head, not two heads as of a monster : namely, Christ and 
 Christ's Vicar, Peter and Peter's successor ; for the Lord 
 Himself said to Peter, " Feed my sheep." ^ Mine, He says, 
 generally ; and not, in particular, these or those : by which 
 He is known to have committed all to him. If, therefore, 
 Greeks or others say that they were not committed to 
 Peter and his successors, they must necessarily confess 
 that they are not of the sheep of Christ, for the Lord said 
 (in the Gospel) by John, that there is " One fold, and one 
 only shepherd."* By the words of the Gospel we are in- 
 structed" that in this his (that is, Peter's) power there are 
 two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the 
 Apostles say, "Behold, here are two swords,"* that is, 
 in the Church, the Lord did not say, "It is too 
 much," but "it is enough." Assuredly, he who denies 
 that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, 
 gives iU heed to the word of the Lord, saying, "Put 
 up again thy sword into its place." ^ Both, therefore, 
 the spiritual sword and the material sword are in the 
 power of the Church. But the latter (the material sword) 
 is to be wielded on behalf of the Church ; the former (the 
 spiritual) is to be wielded by the Chui-ch: the one by the hand 
 of the priest ; the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, 
 but at the suggestion and sufferance of the priest. The 
 one sword ought to be subject to the other, and the 
 
 > St. John xix. 23, 24. 2 St. John xxi. 17. => St, John x. 16. 
 * St. Luke xxii. 38. * St. Matthew xxvi. 52. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWEUS. 59 
 
 temporal authority ouglit to be subject to the spiritual 
 power. For whereas the Apostle says, " There is no power 
 but from God ; and those that are, are ordained of God ; " ' 
 they would not be ordained (or ordered) if one sword were 
 not subject to the other, and as the inferior directed 
 by the other to the highest end. For, according to the 
 blessed Dionysius, it is the law of the Divine order that 
 the lowest should be guided to the highest by those that 
 are intermediate. Therefore, according to the order of the 
 universe, all things are not in equal and immediate subordi- 
 nation ; but the lowest things are set in order by things inter- 
 mediate, and things inferior by things superior. We ought, 
 therefore, as clearly to confess that the spiritual power, both 
 in dignity and excellence, exceeds any earthly power, 
 in proportion as spiritual things are better than things 
 temporal. This we see clearly from the giving, and 
 blessing, and sanctifying of tithes, from the reception 
 of the power itself, and from the government of the same 
 things. For, as the truth bears witness, the spiritual 
 power has to instruct, and judge the earthly power, if it be 
 not good ; and thus the prophecy of Jeremias is verified 
 of the Church and the ecclesiastical power : " Lo, I have 
 set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms," &c.* 
 It, therefore, the earthly power deviates (from its end) , it will 
 be judged by the spiritual ; but if a lesser spiritual power 
 trangresses, it will be judged by its superior : but if the 
 supreme (deviates), it can be judged, not by man, but by 
 God alone, according to the words of the Apostle : " The 
 spiritual man judges all things ; he himself is judged by 
 no one."* This authority, though given to man and 
 exercised through man, is not human, but rather Divine — 
 given by the Divine voice to Peter, and confirmed to 
 
 ' Eomans xiii. 1. ^ Jeremiah i. 10. ^ 1 Corinthians ii. 15. 
 
60 EELATIONS OF THE 
 
 Hin and his successors in Him wlioin Peter confessed, 
 the Eock, for the Lord said to Peter : " Wliatsoever thou 
 shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven : 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall, be loosed 
 also in heaven." ' 
 
 'Whosoever therefore resists this power that is so 
 ordered by God, resists the ordinance of God,^ unless, as 
 Manichfeus did, he feign to himself two principles, which 
 we condemn as false and heretical ; for, as Moses witnesses, 
 " God created heaven and earth not in the beginnings, 
 but in the beginning." ^ Moreover, we declare, affirm, 
 define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation for 
 every human creature to be subject to the Eoman Pontiff.* 
 
 2. We will next take the interpretations. They 
 may be put into three classes : — 
 
 (1) First, of those who assailed it at the time. 
 
 The theologians and doctors of the school at Paris 
 had always taught by a constant tradition that the 
 Popes possessed a spiritual and indirect power over 
 temporal things. John Gerson may be taken as the 
 representative of them all. He says the ecclesiastical 
 power does not possess the dominion and the rights, of 
 earthly and of heavenly empire, so that it may dis- 
 pose at will of the goods of the clergy, and much less 
 of the laity ; though it must be conceded that it has 
 in these thing an authority {^dominium) to rule, to 
 direct, to regulate, and to ordain.'' Such was the 
 
 ' St. Matthew xvi. 19. '^ Eomans xiii. 2. ^ Genesis i. 1. 
 ■* Joann. Gerson, De Potest. Eccles. Consid. xii. Bianchi, 
 Delia Potesta et della Politia della Chiesa, torn. i. lib. i. cap. xi. 
 
SPIUITUAL AND CIVIL POWEKS. 61 
 
 doctrine of Almain, AUiacus, John of Paris, and of the 
 old Sorbonne. It was also the doctrine of the theo- 
 logians of the Council of Constance ; who are always 
 quoted as opponents of the Infallibility of the Pope, 
 because they held that, though the See of Rome could 
 not err, he that sat in it might err. They likewise 
 held the deposing power, which alone is enough to 
 show how little the definition of the Infallibility has 
 to do with the deposition of Kings. 
 
 When the Unam Sanctam was published, Egidius 
 Romanus, the Archbishop of Bourges, wrote against 
 it, being deceived into a belief that Boniface claimed 
 a direct temporal power over the King of France, 
 over and above that power which had always been 
 admitted in France according to the Bull Novit of 
 Innocent III. — viz. an indirect spiritual power in 
 temporal matters when involving sin.^ The same 
 course was taken by other French writers. 
 
 Boniface had already declared in a Consistory in 
 1.^02 that he had never assumed any jurisdiction 
 which belonged to the King ; but that he had declared 
 the King to be, like any other Christian, subject to 
 him only in regard to sin.^ 
 
 (2) Secondly, the Regalists once more assailed the 
 Unaia Sanctam in the reign of Louis XIV. 
 
 Bianchi says that there is not to be found a writer 
 
 ' Bianchi, lib. i. cap. x. 
 
 ^ Dollinger'a History of the Church, -vol, iv. p. 91. 
 
62 GELATIONS OF THE 
 
 in France, before Calvin, who denied this indirect 
 spiritual power ; that the denial was introduced by 
 the Huguenots about the year 1626 ; that the Sor- 
 bonne began to adhere to it, and reduced it to a 
 formula in 1662.' Bossuet endeavours to fasten on 
 the Unam Sanctam the old Regalist interpretation, 
 and affirms that it was withdrawn by Clement V. : 
 which statement is contrary to the fact. Clement V., 
 on the contrary, interprets the Bull in the true sense, 
 as Boniface had done, declaring that Boniface did not 
 thereby subject the King, or the Kingdom of France, 
 in any greater degree to the authority of the Pontiff 
 than they had been before, that is, according to the 
 Bull of Innocent III. Novit, and the doctrines of the 
 old Sorbonne.^ 
 
 The history of the Four Galilean Articles, and of 
 the writers who defended them, is too well known to 
 need repetition. 
 
 (3) We come, lastly, to those who have assailed 
 it at this tmie. 
 
 It is not a little weai'isome to read the same old 
 stories over again; and to be told as ' scientific history' 
 that Boniface VIII. claimed to have received both 
 swords as his own, to be held in his own hand, and 
 wielded by him in direct temporal jurisdiction over 
 temporal princes. We have all this raked up again 
 
 ' Lib. i. cap. xiii. 
 
 2 In the Appendix A -will be found in full the Text of the three 
 Pontifical Acts, Novit, Unam Sanctam, Mei-uit. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWEES. 63 
 
 in Janus. From Janus it goes to newspapers, mag- 
 azines, and pamphlets. Anybody can interpret a 
 Pope's Bull. There is no need of a knowledge of 
 contemporary facts, or of the terminology of the 
 Ci\T.l or Canon Law, or of Pontifical Acts, or of the 
 technical meaning of words. A dictionary, and a 
 stout heart to attack the Popes, is enough. Such men 
 would have us believe, against all the Popes, that 
 they have claimed temporal power, properly so 
 called, over temporal Princes. 
 
 VI. I will, therefore, now give what may be 
 affirmed to be the true and legitimate interpretation 
 of the Unam Sanctam. 
 
 It cannot be better stated than in the words of 
 Dr. Dollinger.-^ He writes thus: — 
 
 ' Boniface opened tlie council, at whicli there were 
 present from France four archbishops, thirty-five bishops, 
 and six abbots, in November 1302. One consequence of 
 this council appears to have been the celebrated decretal 
 Unam Sanctam, which was made public on the 18th of 
 November, and which contains an exposition of the rela- 
 tions between the spiritual and temporal powers. In the 
 Church, it says, there are two powers, a temporal and 
 spiritual, and as far as they are both in the Church, they 
 have both the same end : the -temporal power, the inferior, 
 is subject to the spiritual, the higher and more noble ; the 
 former must be guided and directed by the latter, as the 
 body is by the soul; it receives from the spiritual its 
 
 1 Hist. iv. p. 91. 
 
64 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 Consecration and its direction to its highest object, and 
 must therefore, should it ever depart from its destined 
 path, be corrected by the spiritual power. It is a truth 
 of faith that all men, even kings, are subject to the Pope ; 
 if, therefore, they should be guilty of grievous sins, in 
 peace or in war, or in the government of their kingdoms, 
 and the treatment of their subjects, and should thus lose 
 sight of the object to which the power of a Christian 
 Prince should be directed, and should give public scandal 
 to the people, the Pope can admonish them, since in 
 regard to sin they are subject to the spiritual power ; he 
 can correct them; and, if necessity should require it, 
 compel them by censures to remove such scandals. For if 
 they were not subject to the censures of the Church, 
 whenever they might sin in the exercise of the power 
 entrusted to them, it would follow that as kings they were 
 out of the Church ; that the two powers would be totally 
 distinct from each other ; and that they were descended 
 from distinct and even opposed principles, which would be 
 an error approaching to the heresy of the Manichees. It 
 was therefore the indirect power of the Church over the 
 temporal power of kings which the Pope defended in these 
 Bulls ; and he had designedly extracted the strongest 
 passages of them from the writings of two French 
 theologians, St. Bernard and Hugo of St. Victor.' 
 
 The interpretation given here by Dr. DoUinger 
 is undoubtedly correct. All Catholics are bound to 
 assent to the doctrines here declared ; for though they 
 are not here defined, yet they are certainly true. The 
 only definition, properly so called, in the Bull is con- 
 tained in the last sentence. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 65 
 
 Now, upon the doctrines declared by the Bull it is 
 to be observed : — 
 
 1. That it does not say that the two swords 
 were given by our Lord to the Church ; but 
 that the two swords are in potestate Ucdesice, 
 ' in the power of the Church.' 
 
 2. That it at once goes on to distinguish, ' Both 
 
 (swords) are in the power of the Church, the 
 spiritual, that is, and the material. But this 
 (the material) is to be used for the Church ; 
 that (the spiritual) is to be used by the 
 Church. This, indeed (by the hand) of the 
 Priest ; that,by the hand of kings and soldiers, 
 but at the bidding and sufferance of the 
 Priest.' 
 
 3. That though both swords are in the Church, 
 they are held in different hands, and to be 
 used by the subordination of the one to the 
 other. Oportet autem ^ladium esse sub gladio : 
 the one sword must be subordinate to the 
 other, the lower to the higher, 
 
 4. That Boniface VIII., in this very Bull Unam 
 Sanctam^ expressly declares that the power 
 given to Peter was the ' Suprema Spiritualis 
 potestas^' not the Temporal, or a mixed power, 
 but purely Spiritual, which may judge all 
 Powers, but self is judged of God alone. 
 
 Now, on the principles already laid down, there 
 
66 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 ought to be no difficulty in rightly and clearly under- 
 standing this doctrine. 
 
 1. For first the Material Sword is as old as human 
 
 society. It was not given by grace, nor held 
 
 by grace, which is a heresy condemned in 
 
 Wiclif by the Council of Constance; but it 
 
 belongs to the Civil Ruler in the order of 
 
 nature, as St. Paul, speaking of the heathen 
 
 empire, says : ' He beareth not the sword 
 
 in vain ; for he is the minister of God to 
 
 execute wrath.' 
 
 Nothing but want of care or thought could have 
 
 led men to forget this, which is a truth and fact of 
 
 the natural order. 
 
 When any prince by baptism became Christian, 
 he became subject to the law of God and to the 
 Church as its expositor. He became subject, not 
 only as a man, but as a prince ; not only in the duties 
 of his private life, but in the duties of his public life 
 also. But this did not deprive him of the civil sword, 
 nor of any of the rights of the natural order.-^ Oportet 
 autem gladium esse sub gladio. The Bull declares 
 that the Material Sword which he brought with him 
 when he was baptized ought to be subject to the 
 Spiritual Sword. But it nowhere says that the 
 Material Sword was given to the Church, or that the 
 Church gave it to the Imperial Ruler. It is in the 
 
 ' Bianchi, lib. i. cap. iv. 
 
SPIlilTUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 67 
 
 Church, because he that bears it is in the Church. It 
 is the office of the Church to consecrate it, and (msti- 
 tuere) to instruct it. But it belongs essentially to the 
 natural order, though it is to be exercised according 
 to the supernatural order of faith, 
 
 2. When it is said that both Swords are ' in the 
 power of the Church,' it means that the Church 
 in a Christian world includes the natural order 
 in its unity. The conception of the Church 
 included the whole complex Christian Society, 
 made up of both powers, united in a complete 
 visible unity. 
 Mr. Bryce, in his excellent work on the Holy 
 Roman Empire, says: — 
 
 ' Thus the Holy Eoman Churcli, and the Holy Eoman 
 Empire are one and the same thing in two aspects ; and 
 Catholicism, the principle of the universal Christian Society, 
 is also Eomanism : that is, rests upon Rome as the origin 
 and type of universality, manifesting itself in a mystic 
 ■dualism which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. 
 As Divine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom all 
 souls have been entrusted ; as human and temporal, the 
 Emperor, commissioned to rule men's bodies and acts.' ' 
 
 Mr. Bryce has here clearly seen the concrete unity of 
 the Christian world; but he has missed the order which 
 creates that unity. His description is what Boniface 
 VIII. calls ' a monster with two heads.' Mr. Bryce 
 
 ' The Hohj Roman Empire, p. 108. (Macmillar., 1871.) 
 !• 2 
 
68 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 quotes this saying in a note. If he had mastered the 
 spiritual element as he has mastered the political, Mr. 
 Bryce's book would have ranked very high among 
 great authors. 
 
 Mr. Freeman, in an article on Mr. Bryce's book, is 
 nearer to the true conception. He writes as follows : 
 
 ' The theory of the Mediseval Empire is that of an 
 universal Christian Monarchy. The Eoman Empire and 
 the Catholic Church are two aspects of one Society.' . . . 
 * At the head of this Society, in its temporal character as 
 an Empire, stands the temporal chief of Christendom, the 
 Eoman Caesar ; at its head, in its spiritual character as a 
 Church, stands the spiritual chief of Christendom, the 
 Eoman Pontiff. Ceesar and Pontiff alike rule by Divine 
 right.^ 
 
 Now here are two things to be noted. First, that 
 the Emperor holds an office of human creation; the 
 Pontiff an office of Divine creation. Secondly, that 
 the office of Divine creation is for a higher end than 
 the office which is of human origin. The former is 
 for the eternal, the latter for the earthly happiness 
 ,of man. 
 
 But, as I have said before, the office of Divine 
 creation, ordained to guide men to an eternal end, is 
 higher than the office of human origin, directed to an 
 earthly and temporal end; and in this the perfect 
 unity and subordination of the whole is constituted 
 and preserved. 
 
 * Freeman's Historical Essays, pp. 136-137. (Macmillan, 1872.) 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 69 
 
 Nevertheless, both. Mr. Bryce and Mr. Freeman 
 bring out clearly what Boniface means when he says 
 that the two swords are in Ecclesia, in the Church, 
 and in potestate JEcdesice, in the power of the Church. 
 
 To this I may add the following passage from the 
 late Cardinal Tarquini, who states the whole subject 
 with great precision : — 
 
 ' The Civil Society of Catholics is distiaguished from 
 others by this — ^that it consists of the same assemblage of 
 men as the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, 
 consists of: so that it in no way constitutes a real body 
 diverse and separate from the Church ; but both (societies) 
 together have the character of a twofold federative asso- 
 ciation and obligation inhering in the same multitude of 
 men, whereby the Civil Society under the government of the 
 Civil Magistrate exerts its powers to secvire the temporal 
 happiness of men, and, under the government of the 
 Church, to secure eternal life ; and in such wise that eter- 
 nal life be acknowledged to be the last and supreme end to 
 which temporal happiness and the whole temporal life is 
 subordinate ;, because if any man do not acknowledge this, 
 he neither belongs to the Catholic Church, nor may call 
 himself Catholic. Such, then, is the true notion of the 
 Civil Society of Catholics. It is a society of men who so 
 pursue the happiness of this life as thereby to show that 
 it ought to be subordinate to the attainment of eter- 
 nal happiness, which they believe can be attained alone 
 under the direction of the Catholic Church.' ' 
 
 We have here the full and genuine doctrine of 
 the Unarm Sanctam — the one body, the two swords, 
 
 ' Tarquini, Juris Eccl. Puhlici Jnstitutiones, p. 56. (Rome, 1873.) 
 
7U RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 the subordination of the material to the spiritual 
 sword, the indirect power of the spiritual over the 
 temporal whensoever it deviates from the eternal end. 
 
 Dr. Dbllinger's interpretation, then, is strictly 
 correct — ^namely, ' It was therefore,' he says, ' the in- 
 direct power of the Church over the temporal power 
 of Kings which the Pope defended in these BuUs ;' 
 but that power of the Pope is itself Spiritual. 
 
 VII. From this doctrine Cardinal Tarquini draws 
 the following conclusions: — 
 
 1. In things temporal, and in respect to the 
 temporal end (of Government), the Church 
 has no power in Civil society. 
 
 The proof of this proposition is that all things 
 merely temporal ai'e {jproeter jinem Ecclesice) beside, 
 or outside of, the end of the Church. It is a general 
 rule that no society has power in those things which 
 are out of its own proper end. 
 
 2. In whatsoever things, whether essentially or 
 by accident, the spiritual end, that is, the end 
 of the Church, is necessarily involved, in those 
 things, though they be temporal, the Church 
 may by right exert its power, and the Civil 
 State ought to yield.-^ 
 
 In these two propositions we have the full expla- 
 nation of the indirect spiritual power of the Church. 
 I give it in Cardinal Tarquini's words — 
 
 ' Directly the care of temporal happiness alone belongs 
 ' Tarquini, Juris Eccl. Puhlici Institutiones, p. 57. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 71 
 
 to the State, but ituMirectly the office also of protecting- 
 morals and religion ; so, however, that this be done de- 
 pendently on the Church, forasmuch as the Church is a 
 society to which the care of religion and morals is directly 
 committed. 
 
 'That which in the Civil Society is indirect and 
 dependent, is direct and independent in the Church ; and, 
 on the other hand, the end which is proper and direct to 
 the Civil State, that is, temporal happiness, falls only 
 indirectly, or so far as the spiritual end requires, under 
 the power of the Church. 
 
 ' The result of all this is — • 
 
 ' 1. That the Civil Society, eyen though every member 
 of it be Catholic, is not subject to the Church, but 
 plainly independent in- temporal things which 
 regard its temporal end. 
 ' 2. That the language of the Fathers, which seems 
 to affirm ' an absolute independence of the Civil 
 State, is to be brought within this limit.' 
 
 VIII. I will now give a summary of this matter in 
 the words of Suarez, and also his comment on the 
 terminology used by Canonists and theologians on this 
 subject. 
 
 He says that the opinion which gives to the Pontiff 
 direct temporal power over all the world is false. 
 
 Next, he sets aside the opinion that the Pontiff 
 has this direct temporal power over the Church. 
 
 He then gives as the true opinion that which has 
 been affirmed — namely, that the Pontiff has not direct 
 temporal power, except in those States of which he is 
 
 Tarquini, Juris Eccl. Publici Institutione», p. 55 a7id note. 
 
72 EELATIONS OF THE, 
 
 Temporal Prince ; but that lie has a spirilual power 
 indirectly over temporal things, in so far as they affect 
 the salvation of men or involve sin.^ 
 
 One chief cause of the confusion of Eegalists and 
 our non-Catholic adversaries has been the uncertain 
 use of language, and the want of a fixed terminology 
 until a certain date. 
 
 The word Temporalyvas used in two senses. It was 
 used to signify the power of Civil Rulers in the order 
 of nature. And in this sense the Church has never 
 claimed it for its head. It was used also to signify 
 the spiritual power of the Pontiff when incident 
 indirectly upon temporal things. The spiritual power, 
 then, had a temporal effect, and took, so to speak, its 
 colour and name from that use, remaining always 
 spiritual as before. 
 
 For instance, we speak of ' the Colonial power ' of 
 the Crown, meaning the Imperial power applied to 
 the government of the Colonies ; in like manner the 
 Spiritual power of the Pope, applied indirectly to 
 temporal things, was (improprie) improperly called 
 Temporal, and this usus loquendi gave rise to much 
 misinterpretation. 
 
 What I have here stated was the judgment of 
 Bellarmine, who, in his answer to Barclay, writes as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' Barclay says tliat there are two opinions among 
 
 ' Suarez, De Legihus, lib. iii. c. vi. 
 
SPIKITUAL AND CIVIL I'OWERS. 73 
 
 Catholics (on the power of the Pontiff) . The one, which 
 most Canonists follow, affirms that in the Supreme Pontiff, 
 as Vicar of Christ, both powers, Spiritual and Temporal, 
 exist : the other, which is the common opinion of Theo- 
 logians, affii'ms that the power of the Supreme Pontiff, 
 as Vicar of Christ, is strictly spiritual in itself ; but 
 that, nevertheless, he may, by the same, dispose temporal 
 things so that they be ordered for spiritual ends.'' 
 
 Barclay argued tliat the power of the Pope in 
 temporal things was a free and open opinion among 
 Cathohcs : Bellarmine, in replying, says : — 
 
 ' That this power is in the Pope is not opinion but 
 certitude among Catholics, though there be many dis- 
 cussions as to what and of what quality the power is : that 
 is to say, whether it be properly and in itself of a temporal 
 kind, or whether it be not rather spiritual, but by a 
 certain necessary consequence, and in order to spiritual 
 ends, it dispose of temporal things.'^ 
 
 Bellarmine states his own opinion in these words : 
 
 ' Temporal Princes, when they come to the family of 
 Christ, lose neither their princely power nor jurisdiction ; 
 but they become subject to him whom Christ has set over 
 His family, to be governed and directed by him in those 
 things which lead to eternal life.'^ 
 
 Now, from these passages it would appear that in 
 Bellarmine's judgment the opinions of the Canonists 
 and the Theologians practically came to one and the 
 
 ' Bellarmine, De Potestate Summi Pontificis, cap. i. p. 848 a, 
 Cologae, 1617. ^ Ihid. cap. iii. p. 852 a. ^ Ibid, cap. ill. p. 858 a. 
 
74 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 same thing, though their language was different, By- 
 Temporal Power some earlier Canonists may perhaps 
 have intended a power temporal in itself; but the later 
 Canonists did not intend more than a Spiritual power 
 over temporal things : which the Theologians also 
 asserted. But this use of the word temporal seemed 
 to imply that the quality of the power was not spiritual, 
 as the Theologians asserted. This ambiguity is the 
 source of the misunderstandings which we daily read 
 in attacks upon the Catholic Church. I can the more 
 readily believe the good faith of those who so mis- 
 conceive it, because I can remember that I was misled 
 by the same mistake for many years. For instance, 
 the Canonists affirm that the whole world is the terri- 
 tory of the Pontiff ( Je?'nto?w??i Pontijicis). But they 
 do so in answering the objection, that where the Pon- 
 tiff acts spiritually in the territory of any temporal 
 Prince, he is invading the territory of another. 
 The meaning is evident : namely, that the Pontiff 
 has universal jurisdiction over the whole world. 
 But this does not say that his jurisdiction is tem- 
 poral. It affirms only that it runs into all the 
 world. It merely affirms that it is universal: and 
 the same writers assert that in itself it is only 
 Spiritual.^ 
 
 "We have been told that Bellarmine's book was 
 put upon the Index. But, after a judicial examin- 
 
 ^ Tarquini, p. 46, 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 75 
 
 atiou, it was removed by order of the Holy See, and 
 its perfect soundness acknowledged. 
 
 Suarez lays down precisely the same doctrine as 
 Bellarmine. He says: — 
 
 ' Those authors who teach absolutely that the Pope has 
 Supreme Power, and that temporal, in the whole world, 
 mean this, "that the Pontiff, in virtue of his Spiritval Power 
 and jurisdiction, is superior to Kings and temporal Princes, 
 so as to direct them in the use of their temporal Power 
 in order to Spiritual ends." ' 
 
 "He then goes on: — 
 
 'For though they sometimes speak indistinctly, and 
 without sufficient clearness, or even (improprie) incor- 
 rectly — ^because the power of the Pope is not temporal but 
 spiritual, which contains under itself things temporal, and 
 is exercised about them indirectly, that is, for the sake of 
 Spiritual things — nevertheless they often make this sense 
 clear, and lay down their distinctions either expressly or 
 virtually; for they affirm that the Pontiff can do some 
 things indirectly, but deny that he can do them directly.^ 
 
 But if the Pope had temporal power properly so 
 called, he could do all things directly. This negative 
 proves that the power of which they spoke was only 
 Spiritual. 
 
 Suarez further says : — 
 
 ' Subjection is of two kinds ^direct and indirect. 
 Subjection is called direct when it is within the end and 
 limits of the same power: it is called indirect when it 
 
 ' Suarez, Defensio Fidei Catholicce, torn. xxiv. lib. iii. c. xxii. 
 2nd ed. Paris, 1869. 
 
76 • RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 springs from direction to a higher end, which belongs to 
 a higher and more excellent power. The proper Civil 
 Power in itself is directly ordained for the fitting state 
 and temporal happiness of the human commonwealth in 
 time of this present life ; and therefore the power itself is 
 called temporal. The Civil Power, therefore, is then called 
 supreme in its own order when within the same, and in 
 respect to its end, the ultimate resolution (of power) is 
 made within its own sphere.' . . . . ' The chief ruler is, 
 then, subordinate to no superior in order to the same end 
 of Civil Government. But, as temporal and civil happiness 
 are related to that which is spiritual and eternal, it may 
 happen that the matter of Civil Government must be 
 otherwise ordered and directed, in order to spiritual 
 welfare, than the Civil policy alone seems to require. And 
 then, though the temporal Prince and his power do not 
 directly depend in their acts upon any other power in the 
 same {i. e. the temporal) order, which also regards the 
 same end only, nevertheless it may happen that it needs 
 to be directed, helped, and corrected in the matter of its 
 government by a superior power, which governs men in 
 order to a more excellent and eternal end ; and then this 
 dependence is called indirect, because that higher power is 
 not exercised in respect to temporal things {per se) of its 
 own nature, nor for its own sake, but indirectly, and for 
 another end.'^ 
 
 It will be seen here : — 
 
 1. That the superior power cannot be temporal, 
 
 or its jurisdiction would be direct. 
 
 2. That, if temporal, it would not be of a higher, 
 but of the same order. 
 
 * Suarez, Defensio Fidei, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 2. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 77 
 
 3. That, therefore, the claim of indirect power 
 is an express exclusion of temporal power, 
 properly so called, from the spiritual supre- 
 macy of the Head of the Church. 
 
 Suarez states, but rejects, the opinion of certain 
 early Canonists and Jurists who taught that the power 
 of the Pontiff over anytemporal thingwas also temporal 
 in itself. He then states and proves that this indirect 
 power is Spiritual only. After speaking of the power 
 of the Keys, he says: — 
 
 ' In no otlier place did Christ imply that He gave to 
 Peter or to the Church temporal dominion, or a proper 
 and direct royalty ; nor does Ecclesiastical tradition show 
 this, but rather the reverse.' ' 
 
 With these authorities before us, there can be 
 little difficulty in explaining the texts usually quoted 
 by adversaries, who desire to fasten on the Unam 
 Sanctam and upon the Catholic Church a claim to 
 temporal power, that is, temporal in its root and in 
 itself. 
 
 The passages usually quoted from Pope Nicholas, 
 St. Bernard, St. Thomas, Alvarez, Hugo of St. 
 Yictor, St. Bonaventura, Durandus, and others, are 
 fully discussed and proved by Bellarmine to affirm no 
 more than Spiritual power ; and that indirectly over 
 
 ^ Suarez, Defensio Fidei, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 14. 
 
78 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 temporal matters, when they involve the Spiritual end 
 of the Church.^ 
 
 IX. I hope sufficiently to prove hereafter what I 
 asserted — ^namely, that though a supreme spiritual 
 authority be inherent in the Divine constitution and 
 commission of the Church, its exercise ia the world 
 depends on certain moral and material conditions, by 
 which alone its exercise is rendered possible or just. 
 This shall be shown by treating the subjects raised by 
 the 'Expostulation ;'^ namely, the deposing power, and 
 the use of political force or penal legislation in matters 
 of religion. I hope, and I believe, that I am able to show 
 that the moral condition of the Christian world made 
 justifiable in other ages that which would be unjusti- 
 fiable in this ; and that the attempt to raise prejudice, 
 suspicion, and hostility against the Catholic Church at 
 this day and in England by these topics, is an act essen- 
 tially unjust; from which a real science of history ought 
 to have preserved Mr. Gladstone. I must repeat here 
 «gain that between the Vatican Council and these sub- 
 jects there is no more relation than between jurispru- 
 dence and the equinox. Some fifteen Councils of the 
 Church, of which two are General, have indeed recog- 
 nised and acted upon the supremacy of the Spiritual 
 authority of the Church over temporal things ; but the 
 Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is one thing, his 
 
 ' This may be seen in his Controversia de Summo .Pontifice, 
 cap. V. ; and in Bianchi's work, Delia Potesta, torn. i. p. 91, lib. i. 
 ch. X. xi^ 2 Expostulation, p. 26. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 79 
 
 supreme judicial authority is another. And the Defini- 
 tion of Infallibility by the Vatican Council has in no 
 way, by so much as a jot or tittle, changed or affected 
 that which was infallibly fixed and declared before. 
 But, as I will go on to show, even infallible laws 
 cease to apply when the subject matter is wanting, 
 and the necessary moral conditions are passed away. 
 I must acknowledge, therefore, that the following 
 words fill me with surprise. Speaking of Dr. Doyle 
 and others, he says: — 
 
 ' Answers in abundance were obtained, tending to stow 
 tbat the doctrines of deposition and persecution, of keeping 
 no faith with heretics, and of universal dominion, were 
 obsolete beyond revival.' 
 
 This passage implicitly afiirms what I hope ex- 
 plicitly to prove. How can laws become obsolete, but 
 by the cessation of the moral conditions which require 
 or justify their exercise ? How can laws, the exercise of 
 which is required by the permanent presence of the same 
 moral conditions which called them into existence, be- 
 come obsolete ? I pass over the ' no faith with heretics,' 
 which is an example of the injustice which pervades 
 the Pamphlet. I should have thought it impossible 
 for Mr. Gladstone not to know the true meaning of 
 this controversial distortion : but I am willing to 
 believe that he did not know it ; for if he had, it 
 would have been impossible for such as he is to 
 write it. 
 
 ^ Expostulation, p. 26. 
 
80 KELATIONS OF THE 
 
 The moral principles on wliicli the exercise of 
 supreme powers and rights was justifiable in the age of 
 Boniface VIII. exist no longer in the nineteenth cen- 
 tury in England. Let no one cynically pretend that 
 this is to give up or to explain away. I read the 
 other day these words : — 
 
 ' The Pope has sent forth his prohibitions and his anathe- 
 mas to the world, and the world has disregarded them. The 
 faithful receive them with conventional respect, and then 
 hasten to assure their Protestant friends that Papal edicts 
 can make no possible difference in the conduct of any- 
 human being.' " 
 
 Nothing can be less true. The first principles of 
 morals forbid the exercise of the supreme judicial 
 power of the Church on such a civil order as that of 
 England. When it was de facto subject to the Church, 
 England had by its own free will accepted the laws of 
 Christendom. It can never be again subject to such 
 laws except on the same condition — namely, by its 
 own free will. Till then the highest laws of morality 
 render the exercises of such Pontifical acts in Eng- 
 land impossible. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has called on Pius IX. to re- 
 pudiate such powers.^ But Pius IX. cannot repudi- 
 ate powers which his predecessors justly exercised, 
 without implying that their actions were unjust. He 
 
 ' Times, Wednesday, December 30, 1874, in leading article on 
 the Pope. ^ Expostulation, p. 26. 
 
SPIRITUAL AXD CIVIL POWERS. 81 
 
 need not repudiate them, for himself, for the exercise of 
 them is impossible, and, if physically possible, would 
 be morally impossible, as repugnant to all equity, 
 and, under correction, I will say to natural justice. 
 The infallible witness for justice, and equity, and 
 charity among men, cannot violate these laws which 
 unerringly govern his office. 
 
 X. The command of our Lord to the Apostles : ' Go 
 ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every 
 creature : he that believeth and is baptised shall be 
 saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned ' ^ 
 — clearly invests the Church with authority to bap- 
 tise every creature. But the exercise of this right 
 was suspended upon a moral condition. It conveyed 
 no right to baptise any man against his will ; nor 
 without an act of faith on his part. But an act of 
 faith is a spontaneous and voluntary act of submission, 
 both of intellect and will, to the truth, and to the 
 teacher who delivers it. The absolute and universal 
 authority therefore of the Church to baptise depends 
 upon the free and voluntary act of those who believe, 
 ■and, through their own spontaneous submission, are 
 willing to be baptised. 
 
 The Church so regards the moral conditions on 
 which its acts depend, that as a rule it will not even 
 suffer an infant to be baptised unless at least one of 
 the parents consents. 
 
 In like manner the power of absolution, which 
 
 » St. Mark xvi. 15, 10. 
 
82 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 has no limit of time or of subject, can be exercisecJ 
 only upon those who are wilUng. Confession anct 
 contrition, both voluntary acts of the penitent, are 
 absolutely necessary to the exercise of the power of 
 the Keys. 
 
 This principle will solve many questions in respect 
 to the Spiritual authority of the Church over the 
 Civil State. 
 
 First, it shows that, until a Christian world 
 and Christian Rulers existed, there was no subject 
 for the exercise of this spiritual authority of judg- 
 ment and correction. Those who amuse themselves 
 by asking why St. Peter did not depose Nero, will 
 do well to find out whether people are laughmg with 
 them or at them. Such questions are useful. They 
 compendiously show that the questioner does not 
 understand the first principles of his subject. If he 
 will find out why St. Peter neither baptised nor 
 absolved Nero, he will have found out why he did 
 not depose him. Until a Christian world existed 
 there was no apta materia for the supreme judicial 
 power of the Church in temporal things. Therefore 
 St. Paul laid down as a rule of law that he had 
 nothing to do in judging those that were without the 
 unity of the Church. 
 
 But when a Christian world came into existence, 
 the Civil society of man became subject to the Spiritual 
 direction of the Church. So long, however, as indivi- 
 duals only subjected themselves, one by one, to its 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 83 
 
 authority, the conditions necessary for the exercise of 
 its office were not fully present. The Church guided 
 men, one by one, to their eternal end ; but as yet 
 the collective society of nations was not svibject to 
 its guidance. It is only when nations and kingdoms 
 become socially subject to the supreme doctrinal and 
 judicial authority of the Church that the conditions of 
 its exercise are verified. When the senate and people 
 of the Roman Empire were only half Christian, 
 the Church still refrained from acts which would 
 have afiected the Avhole body of the State. When 
 the whole had become Christian, the whole became 
 subject to the Divine Law, of which the Roman 
 PontiflP was the supreme expositor and executive. 
 
 It would be endless to state examples in detail. 
 I will take, therefore, only one in which the indirect 
 spiritual power of the Church over the temporal State 
 is abundantly shown. Take, for instance, the whole 
 subject of Christian Matrimony : the introduction of 
 the Christian law of the unity and indissolubility 
 and sacramental character of marriage ; the tables 
 of consanguinity and of affinity ; the jurisdiction of 
 the Church over matrimonial cases. This action of 
 the Pontifical law upon the Imperial law, and the 
 gradual conformity of the Empire to the Church, 
 exhibits in a clear and complete way what is the 
 power claimed by the Church over the temporal 
 laws of Princes. 
 
 The Council of Trent reserves matrimonial causes 
 
'84 RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 to the Ecclesiastical Tribunals; and in the Syllabus 
 the proposition is condemned that they belong to 
 the Civil jurisdiction.^ 
 
 In like manner, in prohibiting duels, the Council 
 declares temporal penalties against not only the 
 principals, but those also who are guilty of permitting 
 them? 
 
 In like manner, again, the Christian law of faith 
 and morals passed into the public law of Christendom. 
 Then arose the Christian jurisprudence, in which the 
 Roman Pontiff was recognised as the supreme Judge 
 of Princes and of People, with a twofold coercion: 
 spiritual by his own authority, and temporal by the 
 secular arm. These tv/o acted as one. Excommuni- 
 cation and deposition were so united in the juris- 
 prudence of Christendom, that he who pronounced 
 the sentence of excommunication pronounced also 
 the sentence of deposition ; as before the repeal of 
 our Test Acts, if a member of the Church of England 
 became Catholic, or even Nonconformist, he was 
 ipso facto incapable of sitting in Parliament or holding 
 office of State. And by the first of William III. the 
 heir to the Crown, if he become Catholic, or marry a 
 Catholic, ipso facto forfeits the succession. Nothing 
 is more certain upon the face of history, and no one 
 has proved more abundantly than Dr. Dollinger, that 
 
 • SesSi xxiv. De Eef. can. xii. 
 2 Sess. XXV. cap. xix. 
 
SPIRITUAiL AND CIVIL POWERS. 85 
 
 in every case of deposition, as of Philip le Belj 
 Henry IV. of Germany, Frederic II., and the like, 
 the sentence of the Electors, Princes, States, and 
 people, and the public opinion and voice of nations, 
 had already pronounced sentence of rejection upon 
 those tyrants before the Pontiffs pronounced the 
 sentence of excommunication and deposition. It was 
 only by the faith and free will of nations that they 
 became socially subject to this jurisprudence; it was 
 by their free will that it was maintained in vigour ; 
 and it was in conformity with their free will that it 
 was exercised by the Pontiffs. Their free sentence 
 preceded the Pontifical sentence. It was at their 
 prayer, and in their behalf, that it was pronounced. 
 The moral condition of spontaneous accejatance, and 
 the material conditions of execution, were alike pre- 
 seint, rendering these supreme Pontifical acts legiti- 
 mate, right, lawful, wise, and salutary. 
 
 XL And here I shall be met with the answer : ' You 
 justify, then, the deposition of princes, and therefore 
 you hold that the Pope may depose Queen Victoria.' 
 Such, I am sorry to say, is the argument of the 
 ' Expostulation ;' for if it be not, why was it implied ? 
 I altogether deny the argument, or inference, or call 
 it what you will. I afiirm that the deposition 
 of Henry IV. and Frederic II. of Germany were 
 legitimate, right, and lawful ; and I affirm that a de- 
 position of Queen Victoria would not be legitimate, 
 nor right, nor lawful, because the moral conditions' 
 
86 EELATIONS OE THE 
 
 ■wMch were present to justify the deposition of the 
 'Emperors of Germany are absent in the case of 
 ■Queen Victoria; and therefore such an act could 
 not be done. 
 
 This is not a mere personal opinion of my own, or 
 €ven a mere opinion of theologians. What I have 
 affirmed has been declared by the authority of Pius VI. 
 In a letter from the Congregation of Cardinals of the 
 College of Propaganda, by order of His Holiness 
 Pius VI., addressed to the Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishops of Ireland, dated Rome, June 23, 1791, we 
 read as follows : — 
 
 ' In this controversy a most accurate discrimination 
 should be made between the genuine rights of the Aposto- 
 lical See and those that are imputed to it by innovators of 
 this age for the purpose of calumniating. The See of 
 Rome never taught that faith is not to be kept with the 
 heterodox — that an oath to kings separated from Catholic 
 ■communion can he violated — that it is lawful for the 
 Bishops of Eome to invade their temporal rights and 
 dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or design 
 .against the life of kings and princes, even under the 
 pretest of religion, as a horrid and detestable crime.' 
 
 I may add that this passage was not unknown to 
 Dr. Dollinger, who quotes it at p. 61 in his work on 
 ' The Church and the Churches.' 
 
 But lest any one should reply that this was said 
 when Catholics were under penal laws, and with a 
 view to blinding the English Government, I will add 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 87 
 
 that no one has more frankly and forcibly expressed 
 this than Pius IX., in the very text of which Mr. 
 (rladstone has quoted a part. Tlie Holy Father, on 
 July 20, 1871, thus addressed a Literary Society in 
 Rome : — 
 
 ' In the variety of subjects which will present them- 
 selves to you, one appears to me of great importance at 
 this time ; and that is, to defeat the endeavours which are 
 now directed to falsify the idea of the Infallibility of the 
 Pope. Among all other errors, that is malicious above all 
 which would attribute (to the Infallibihty of the Pope) the 
 Tight of deposing sovereigns, and of absolving people from 
 the obligation of allegiance. 
 
 ' This right, without doubt, has been exercised by the 
 Supreme Pontiffs from time to time in extreme cases, but 
 it has nothing to do with the Pontifical Infallibility; 
 jieither does it flow from the Infallibility, but from the 
 authority of the Pontiff. 
 
 ' Moreover, the exercise of this right in those ages of 
 faith which respected in the Pope that which he is, that is 
 to say, the Supreme Judge of Christendom, and recognised 
 the benefit of his tribunal in the great contentions of 
 peoples and of sovereigns, was freely extended (by aid, as 
 was just, of public jurisprudence, and the common con- 
 sent of nations) to the gravest interests of States and of 
 their rulers.' 
 
 So far Mr. Gladstone quoted from what was before 
 him. Unfortunately, he appears not to have known 
 what followed. Pius IX. went on to say : — 
 
 " But altogether different are the conditions of the pre- 
 sent time from the conditions (of those ages) ; and malice 
 
88 . RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 alone can confound things so diverse, that is to say, the 
 infallible judgment in respect to truths of Divine Revela- 
 tion -with the right which the Popes exercised in virtue of 
 ■their authority -when the common good demanded it. 
 They know better than we, and everybody can discern the 
 reason why such an absurd confusion of ideas is stirred up 
 at this time, and why hypothetical cases are pa/raded of 
 which no man thinJcs. It is because every pretext, even 
 the most frivolous and furthest from the truth, is eagerly 
 caught at, provided it be of a kind to give us annoyance, and 
 to excite civil rulers against the Church. 
 
 ' Some would have me interpret and explain even more 
 fully the Definition of the Council. 
 
 ' I will not do it. It is clear in itself, and has no need 
 of other comments and explanations. Whosoever reads 
 that Decree with a dispassionate mind has its true sense 
 easily and obviously before him.' ^ 
 
 Now, tlie Holy Father in these words has abun- 
 dantly shown two things : first, that they who con- 
 nect Infallibility with, the Deposing Power are talking 
 of what tbey do not understand ; and, secondly, that 
 the moral conditions which jnstified and demanded 
 the deposition of tyrannical Princes, when the 
 mediaeval world was both. Christian and Catholic, 
 have absolutely ceased to exist, now that tlie world 
 has ceased to be Catholic, and has ceased to be even 
 Christian. It has withdrawn itself socially as a 
 whole, and in the public life of nations, from the 
 unity and the jurisdiction of the Christian Church. 
 
 1 Discorsi di Pio Nono, July 20, 1871, p. 203, Eome, 1872. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWEIiS. 8& 
 
 In this it differs altogether from the mediaival world. 
 And it differs also from the ancient world. For, the 
 ancient world had never yet believed the faith ; the 
 modern world has believed, but fallen from its faith. 
 The ancient world was without the unity of the 
 Christian Church de facto et de jure. The modern 
 world is withoLit de facto ; and this has changed all the 
 moral conditions of the subject. The Church never^ 
 indeed, loses its jurisdiction in radice over the baptised, 
 because the character of baptism is indelible ; but 
 unless the moral conditions justifying its exercise be 
 present, it never puts it forth. As Mr. Gladstone has 
 cited the example of Queen Elizabeth, implying that 
 he sees no difference between Queen EHzabeth and 
 Queen Victoria, I will add that Queen Elizabeth was 
 baptised a Catholic ; that she was crowned as a 
 Catholic ; that she received Holy Communion in the 
 High Mass of her consecration as a Catholic ; that 
 she was both de jure and de facto a subject of the 
 Catholic Church ; that the majority of the people of 
 England were still Catholic. What one of all these 
 conditions is present in the case which I refuse to 
 put in parallel? The Enghsh Monarchy has been 
 withdrawn for three centuries from the Catholic 
 Church ; the English people are wholly separate ; the 
 Legislation of England has effaced every trace of 
 the jurisprudence which rendered the Pontifical acts 
 of St. Gregory VII. and Innocent I^'. legitimate, 
 just, and right. The public laws of England 
 
so RELATIONS OF THE 
 
 explicitly reject and exclude the first principles of 
 that ancient Christian and Catholic jurisprudence. 
 Not only is every moral condition which could justify 
 such an act absent, but every moral condition which 
 would render such an act unjustifiable, as it would 
 seem to me, is present.^ This is a treatment of history 
 which is not scientific, but shallow ; and a dangerous 
 use of inflammatory rhetoric, when every calm dictate 
 of prudence and of justice ought to forbid its in- 
 dulgence. 'The historic spirit,'^ commended in the 
 ^Expostulation,' would have led to such a treatment of 
 this question as Mr. Freeman wisely recommends. 
 
 ' The cause of all this diversity and controversy — a 
 •diversity and controversy most fatal to historic truth — is 
 to be traced to the unhappy mistake of looking at the men 
 ■of the twelfth century with the eyes of the nineteenth ; 
 and still more of hoping to extract something from the 
 -events of the twelfth century to do service in the contro- 
 versies of the nineteenth.' ^ 
 
 XII. For the same reasons I deplore the haste, I 
 must say the passion, which carried away so large a 
 mind to affirm or to impl}?^ that the Church at this day 
 would, if she could, use torture, and force and coercion, 
 in matters of religious belief. I am well aware that 
 men of a mind and calibre as far removed from Mr. 
 •Gladstone as almost to constitute a diflPerent species, 
 
 ' Appendix B. ^ Expostulation, p. 14. 
 
 ■'' Freeman's Historical Essays, ' St. Thomas of Canterbury and his 
 BiograpTiers,' p. 80. 
 
SPIEITUAL AND CIVIL POWEES. 91 
 
 have at times endeavoured to raise suspicion and 
 animosity against Catholics, by affirming that if they 
 became the majority in this country — a danger cer- 
 tainly not proximate — they would use their power to 
 compel men to conform to the Catholic faith. In tbe 
 year 1830 the Catholics of Belgium were in a vast 
 majority, but they did not use their political power 
 to constrain the faith or conscience of any man. The 
 ' Four Liberties ' of Belgium were the work of 
 Catholics. This is the most recent example of what 
 Catholics would do if they were in possession of 
 power. But there is one more ancient and more 
 homely for us Englishmen. It is found at a date 
 M^hen the old traditions of the Cathohc Church 
 were still vigorous in the minds of men. It will 
 therefore show that in this at least we owe nothing to 
 modern progress, nor to the indifference of Liberal- 
 ism. If the modern spirit had any share in pro- 
 ducing the Constitution in Belgium, it certainly 
 had no share in producing the Constitution of 
 Maryland. Lord Baltimore, who had bean Secre- 
 tary of State imder James I., in 1^33yemigrated , 
 to the American Plantations, where, through Lord 
 Strafford's influence, he had obtained a grant of land. 
 H(; was accompanied by men of all minds, who 
 agreed chiefly in the one desire to leave behind them 
 the miserable religious conflicts which then tormented 
 England. They named their new country Maryland, 
 and there they settled. The oath of the Governor 
 
92 llELATIONS OF THE 
 
 was in these terms : ' I will not, by myself or any 
 other, directly or indirectly, molest any person pro- 
 fessing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of 
 religion.' Lord Baltimore invited the Puritans of 
 Massachusetts, who, l\ke himself, had renounced their 
 country for conscience' sake, to come into Maryland. 
 In 1649, when active persecution had sprung up 
 again in England, the Council of Maryland, on the 
 21st of April, passed this Statute: 'And whereas 
 the forcing of the conscience in matters of religion 
 hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous conse- 
 quence in the Commonwealth where it has been 
 practised, and for the more quiet and peaceable 
 government of the Province, and the better to pre? 
 serve mutual love and amity among the inhabitants, 
 no person within the Province professing to believe in 
 Jesus Christ shall be anyways troubled, molested, or 
 discountenanced for his or her religion, or in the free 
 exercise thereof.'^ The Episcopalians and Protestants 
 fled from Yirginia into Maryland. Such was the 
 Commonwealth founded by a Catholic upon the 
 broad moral law I have here laid down — that faith 
 is an act of the will, and that to force men to profes» 
 what they do not believe is contrary to the law of 
 God, and that to generate faith by force is morally 
 impossible. It was by conviction of the reason and by 
 persuasion of the wiU that the world-wide unity of 
 
 ' Bancroft's Histonj of the United States, vol. i. pp. 233, 235, 
 255, &c. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS, 93 
 
 faith and communion were slowly built up among the 
 nations. When once shattered, nothing but convic - 
 tion and persuasion can restore it. Lord Baltimore 
 Avas surrounded by a multitude scattered by the 
 great wreck of the Tudor persecutions. He knew 
 that God alone could buUd them up again into unity ; 
 but that the equity of charity might enable them to 
 protect and to help each other, and to promote the 
 common weal. 
 
 I cannot ■ refrain from continuing the history. 
 The Puritan Commonwealth in England brou2:ht 
 on a Puritan revolution in Maryland, They ac- 
 knowledged Cromwell, and disfranchised the whole 
 Catholic population, ' Liberty of conscience ' was 
 declared, but to the exclusion of ' Popery, Prelacy, 
 and licentiousness of opinion.' Penal laws came of 
 ■course. Quakers in Massachusetts, for the first 
 offence, lost one ear ; for the second, the other ; for 
 ■the third, had their tongue seared with a red-hot iron. 
 Women were whipped, and men were hanged, for 
 religion. If Catholics were in power to-morrow in 
 England, not a penal law would be proposed, nor the 
 shadow of constraint be put upon the faith of any man. 
 We would that all men fully believed the truth ; but 
 a forced faith is a hypocrisy hateful to God and man. 
 If Catholics were in power to-morrow, not only 
 would there be no penal laws of constraint, but no 
 penal laws of privation. If the Ionian Islands had 
 elected, some years ago, to attach themselves to the 
 
94 RELATIONS 03? THE 
 
 Sovereignty of Pius IX., the status of the Greek 
 Church separate from Catholic Unity would have 
 been tolerated and respected. Their Churches, their 
 public worship, their Clergy, and their religious rites 
 would have been left free as before. They were 
 found in possession, which was confirmed by the 
 tradition of centuries ; tbey had acquired Civil 
 rights, which enter into the laws of political justice, 
 and as such would have been protected from all 
 molestation.-^ 
 
 I have drawn this out, because a question 
 absolutely chimerical has been raised to disturb 
 the confidence of the English people in their Catholic 
 fellow-countrymen. And I have given the reason 
 and the principle upon which, if the Catholics 
 ^vere to-morrow the ' Imperial race ' in these Kingdoms, 
 they would not use political power to molest the 
 divided and hereditary religious state of our people. 
 We should not shut one of their Churches, or Colleges, 
 or Schools. They would have the same liberties we 
 
 ' Our older writers, snch as Bellarmine and Suarez, when 
 treating of this subject, had before their eyes a generation of men 
 who all had been in the unity of the faith. Their separation there- 
 fore was formal and wilful. Their separ<ation from the unity of the 
 Church did not release the conscience from its jurisdiction. But if 
 Bellarmine and Suarez were living at this day, they would have to 
 treat of a question differing in all its moral conditions. What I 
 have here laid down is founded upon the principles they taught, 
 applied to our times. Cardinal Tarquini, in treating the same matter, 
 has dealt with it as it has been treated here. —Juris Eccl. Pull. 
 Instituiiones, p. 78. 
 
SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS. 95 
 
 enjoy as a minority. I hope the Nonconformists of 
 England are prepared to say the same. As we are 
 in days when some are ' invited,' and some are 
 ' expected,' and some are 'required ' to speak out, I 
 will ask my fellow-countrymen of all religious kinds- 
 to be as frank as I am. 
 
 XIII. I have now given, I hope, sufficient evidence 
 to prove the assertion made in the second letter quoted 
 at the outset of these pages ; namely: — 
 
 'That the relations of the Catholic Church to the- 
 Civil Powers have been fixed immutably from the begin- 
 ning, because they arise out of the Divine constitution 
 of the Church and of the civil society of the natural 
 order.' 
 
 And we have also seen how far from the truth are the 
 confident assertions put foi'ward lately, that the 
 Church ascribes to its head Supreme Temporal as well 
 as Supreme Spiritual Power.^ 
 
 Further, we have seen with Avhat strange want of 
 reflection and of depth the Pontifical acts of the old 
 Catholic world are transferred per saltum to a world 
 which has ceased, in its public life and laws, to be 
 Catholic, I may almost say, to be even Christian. 
 
 Finally, I have shown, I hope, what are the 
 relations of the Church to the Civil Powers of the 
 world; and I have given evidence to prove that those 
 relations have been fixed from the beginning by 
 
 Expostulatwn, ^c. p. 27. 
 
96 EELATIOXS 03? THE SPIRITUAL AND CIVIL POWERS 
 
 Teason of the Divine constitution of the Church, 
 and have been declared by Councils, not only before 
 the Council of the Vatican, but before the Council of 
 Trent; and, therefore, that to charge upon the 
 Vatican Council a change in these relations is not 
 only an assertion without proof, but an assertion 
 icontraiy to historical fact. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OP THE CIVII, POWER. 97 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 AGGRESSIONS OE THE CIVIL POWER, 
 
 Mr. Gladstone says :— 
 
 ' It is the peculiarity of Roman theology that, by thrust- 
 ing itself into the temporal domain, it naturally, and even 
 necessarily, comes to be a frequent theme of political dis- 
 cussion. To qiiiet-minded Roman Catholics it must be a 
 subject of infinite annoyance that their religion is on this 
 ground more than any other the subject of criticism ; more 
 than any other the occasion of conflicts with the State and 
 of civil disquietude. I feel sincerely how much hardship 
 their case entails, but this hardship is brought upon them 
 altogether by the conduct of the authorities of their own 
 Church.' ' 
 
 His pamphlet from begimiing to end bristles with 
 the same accusations against the Catholic Church. 
 His whole argument might be entitled, ' Reasons to 
 show that in all Conflicts the Christian Church is 
 always in the wrong, and the Civil State always in 
 the right ; ' or, ' On the outrageous Claims ' ^ and ' Ex- 
 orbitances of Papal Assumptions,^ contrasted with the 
 Innocence and Infallibility of Civil States.' This seems 
 to me to be history read upside down ; and not history 
 only, but also Christianity. I can hardly persuade 
 
 ' Vatican Decrees, p. 9. ^ Ibid. p. 11. ' Ibid. p. 25. 
 
 H 
 
98 AGGRESSIONS OF -THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 myself that Mr. Gladstone would contend that even 
 in the Constitutions of Clarendon ^ St. Thomas of Can- 
 terbury was the aggressor, and Henry II. was within 
 the law ; or that either the Pope or Archbishop 
 Langton began the conflict with the ' Papal minion 
 John; ' or, again, that in the question of Investitures 
 and Ecclesiastical Simony, the Emperors of Germany 
 were on the side of law and justice, and St. Gregory 
 VII. and Innocent III. were aggressors. And yet all 
 this is necessary to his argument. If he is not prepared 
 to maintain this, the whole foundation is gone. But I 
 do not know how any man who believes in the Divine 
 office of the Christian Church can maintain such a 
 thesis. And I have always believed that Mr. Gladstone 
 does so believe the Christian Church to have a Divine 
 office, which, within some limit at least, is independent 
 of all human authority. 
 
 But as the contention before us is not of the past 
 so much as of the present, I will come to the facts of 
 the days in which we live. 
 
 ' Mr. Gladstone says, upon what evidence I do not know, ' The 
 Constitutions of Clarendon, cursed from the Papal Throne, were the 
 work of the English Bishops.' * St. Thomas himself says that ' Richard 
 de Luci and Jocelin de Balliol, the abettors of the Eoyal tyranny, 
 were the fabricators of those heretical pravities-'t Herbert of 
 Bosham, who was present at Clarendon, says that they were the 
 work of ' certain nobles {proceres) or chief-men of the kingdom.'l 
 The Bishops were indeed terrified into submitting to them, but the 
 Constitutions were in no sense their work. 
 
 * Vatican Decrees, pp. 57, 58. t -^- St. Thomee, torn. iii. p. 12, ed, Giles, 
 1845. X Vita St. Thome, torn, vii. p. 116, ed. Giles. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 99 
 
 My third proposition, then, is, that any collisions 
 now existing between the Catholic Church and the 
 States of Europe have been brought on by changes, 
 not on the part of the Church, much less of the Vatican 
 Council, but on the part of the Civil Powers, and that 
 by reason of a systematic conspiracy against the Holy 
 See. No one will ascribe to the Vatican Council the 
 Revolution in Italy, the seizure of Rome in 1848, the 
 invasion of the Roman State in 1860, the attacks of 
 Garibaldi against Rome, ending with Mentana, And 
 yet there are people who ascribe to the Vatican Council 
 the breach at the Porta Pia, and the entry of the Itahans 
 into Rome. Such reasoners are proof against history, 
 chronology, and logic. If anybody will persist in 
 saying that the two and twenty years of aggression 
 against the Holy See, from 1848 to 1870, were caused 
 by Pius IX., I must address myself to other men. 
 That Pius IX. has been in collision with those who 
 attacked him is true enough. So is every man who 
 defends his own house. Who, I ask, began the fray ? 
 From the Siccardi laws down to the laws of the 
 Guarantees, who was- the aggressor? But where the 
 Pope is concerned logic seems to fail even in reasonable 
 men. The other day Prince Von Bismarck told the 
 Catholics of the Reichstag that they were accomplices 
 of Knlmann, and thereforey as he implied, his assassins. 
 Moreover, he affirmed that the war of France against 
 Prussia was forced on the French Emperor bj the 
 Pope and the Jesuits. How providentially, then, 
 
 H 2 
 
100 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 thougli altogether fortuitously, no doubt, had Prussia 
 been for three years massing its munitions of war and 
 putting France in the wrong by intrigues in Spain, 
 and fables from Ems. Nevertheless, all these things 
 are believed. Prince Von Bismarck has said them. 
 But>aurely they belong to the Arabian Nights. 
 
 Now, I have already shown that, before the Vatican 
 Council assembled, there was an opposition systemati- 
 cally organised to resist it. It was begun by certain 
 Professors at Munich. The Munich Government lent 
 itself as an agent to Dr. Dollinger, and endeavoured 
 to draw the other Governments of Europe into a com- 
 bined attempt to hinder or to intimidate the Council. 
 And this was done on the plea that the Council would 
 not be free. I weU remember that at one time we 
 were told in Rome, that if the Council persevered with 
 the Definition of the Infallibility, the French troops 
 would be withdrawn. That is to say, that the Gari- 
 baldians would be let in to make short work of the 
 Definition. It was said that the presence of the 
 French troops was an undue pressure on the freedom 
 of the Council, and that their departure was essential 
 to its true liberty. There was a grim irony amounting 
 to humour in this solicitude for the liberty of the 
 Council. 
 
 I wiU now trace out more fully the history of 
 this conspiracy, in order to put beyond question my 
 assertion that the plan of attack was prepared before 
 the Council met, and that the Falck Laws are a 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 101 
 
 deliberate change made by the Civil Power of Prussia, 
 the statvis of the Catholic Church in Germany being 
 still unchanged. 
 
 I will here ask leave to repeat wJiat I stated two 
 years ago: — 
 
 ' In tlie year 1869 it was already believed tliat the 
 Bavarian Government, through Prince Hohenlohe, had 
 begun a systematic agitation against the Council. It was 
 known that he had addressed a circular note to the 
 European Governments. But the text of that note was 
 not, so far as I know, ever made public. I'am able now 
 to give the text in full. It affords abundant proof of the 
 assertion here made, that a deliberate conspiracy against 
 the Council was planned with great artifice and specious- 
 ness of matter and of language. Moreover, the date of 
 this document shows how long before the opening of the 
 Council this opposition was commenced. The Council was 
 opened on December 8, 1869. Prince Hohenlohe's note is 
 dated on the 9th of the April preceding, that is to say, 
 about eight months before the Council began. It runs as 
 foUows : — 
 
 ' " Monsieur, — It appears to be certain that the. Council 
 convoked by His Holiness Pope Pius IX. will meet in the 
 month of December next. The number of prelates who 
 will attend it from all parts of the world will be much 
 greater than at any former Council. This fact alone will 
 help to give to its decrees a great authority, such as 
 belongs to an (Ecumenical Council'. Taking this circum- 
 stance into consideration, it appears to me indispensable 
 for every government to give it their attention, and it is 
 with this view that I am about to address to you some 
 observations. 
 
 ' " It is not probable that the Council will occupy itself 
 
102 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 only witli doctrines appertaining to pure theology ; there 
 does not exist at this moment any problem of this nature 
 which requires a conciliar solution. The only dogmatic 
 thesis which Eome would wish to have decided by the 
 Council, and which the Jesuits in Italy and Germany are 
 now agitating, is the question of the Infallibility of the 
 Pope. It is evident that this pretension, elevated into a 
 dogma, would go far beyond the purely spiritual sphere, 
 and would become a question eminently political, as raising 
 the power of the Sovereign FontM', even in temporal 
 matters, over all the princes ;and peoples of Christendom. 
 This doctrine, therefore, is of such a nature as to arouse 
 the attention of all those Grovernmemts who rule over 
 Catholic subjects. 
 
 ' " There is a circurastanoe which increases still more 
 the gravity of the situation. I learn that among the 
 commissions delegated to prepare matter, which later on 
 is to be submitted to 'ike deliberations of the Council, 
 there is one which is occupied only on mixed questions, 
 affecting equally international law, politics, and canon 
 law. All these preparations justify our believing that it is 
 the fixed intention of the Holy See, or at least of a party 
 at present powerful in Rome, to promulgate through the 
 Council a series of decrees upon questions which are rather 
 political than ecclesiastical. Add to this that the Civilta 
 Cattolica — ra pei'iodical conducted by the Jesuits, arid 
 bearing an official character through the brief of the Holy 
 Father — has just demanded that the Council shall trans- 
 form into condliar decrees the condemnations of the 
 Syllabus, published on December 8, 1864. Now, the 
 articles of 'this encyclical being directed against principles 
 which are the base of modern public life, sueh as we find 
 it among all civilised nations, it follows that Governments 
 Are under the necessity of asking themselves if it is not 
 
AGGHESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 103 
 
 their duty to invite the serious consideration both of the 
 Bishops who are their subjects, and of the future Council, 
 to the sad consequences of such a premeditated and 
 systematic overturning of the present relations between 
 Church and State. It cannot, indeed, be denied that it is 
 a matter of urgency for Governments to combine, for the 
 purpose of protesting, either through their agents in 
 Rome, or in some other way, against all decisions which 
 the Council may promulgate without the concurrence of 
 the representatives of the secular power, in questions 
 which are at the same time of a political and religious 
 nature. 
 
 ' " I thought that the initiative in so important a 
 matter should be taken by one of the great Powers ; but 
 not having as yet received any communication on this 
 subject, I have thought it necessary to seek for a mutual 
 understanding which will protect our common interests, 
 and that without delay, seeing that the interval between 
 this time and the meeting of the Council is so short. I 
 therefore desire you to submit this matter to the Govern- 
 ment to which you are accredited, and to ascertain the 
 views and intentions of the Court of * * * in respect 
 to the course which it deems advisable to follow. Tou 
 will submit, for the approbation of M. * * *, the 
 question whether it would not be advisable to fix before- 
 hand the measures to be taken, if not jointly, at least 
 identically, in order to enlighten the Holy See as to the 
 attitude which the Governments of the Continent will 
 assume in reference to the (Ecumenical Council ; or 
 whether conferences composed |of representatives of the 
 States concerned would not be considered as the best 
 means to bring about an understanding between their 
 Governments. 
 
 ' " I authorise you to leave a copy of this despatch with 
 
104 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 the Minister for Foreign Affairs at * * * , if he desires 
 it ; and I wish you to inform me as early as possible of the 
 manner in which this comnrnnication may be received. 
 ' " I have the honour, etc., 
 
 ' " HOHENLOHE. 
 
 ' " Munich, April 9, 1869," ' 
 
 No one could fail to see that this Circular had not 
 Prince Hohenlohe for its author. We shall hereafter 
 trace it to its legitimate origin. 
 
 ' The indiction of the Council was no sooner published 
 than the well-known volume called Janus appeared. It 
 was said to be the work of many hands, and of various 
 nations — of two at least. The chief object of its animosity 
 was Rome, and its detailed hostility was levelled against 
 the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the Syllabus. 
 The book was elaborately acrimonious and extravagantly 
 insolent against Rome. Its avowed aim was to rouse the 
 Civil Governments against the Council. The Sovereign 
 Pontiff had, with great wisdom and justice, dealt with the 
 Governments of Europe on the ground chosen by them- 
 selves. They had renounced the Catholic relations of 
 union hitherto subsisting between the Civil and Spiritual 
 Powers. Pius IX. took them at their word. He convened 
 the Spiritual Legislature of the Church ; he did not invite 
 those who have gloried in their separation from it. This, 
 again, sharpened the jealousy and suspicion of the Govern- 
 ments. At this time came forth certain publications — to 
 which I will not more explicitly refer — avowedly intended 
 to excite, the Civil Powers to active opposition. 
 
 ' About the month of September 1869, as I have already 
 said, a document containing five questions was proposed by 
 the Bavarian Government to the Theological Faculty at 
 Munich. No one could for a moment doubt by what hand 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 105 
 
 those interrogatories also were framed ; they were intended 
 to elicit the answer, that the action of the Council, if it 
 were to define the Infallibility of the Eoman Pontiff, 
 would he irreconcilable not only with Catholic doctrine, 
 but with the security of Civil Governments. In due time 
 the answers appeared, leaving no doubt that both the ques- 
 tions and the replies were inspired by one mind, if not 
 written by one and the same hand. 
 
 ' We have already seen that Prince Hohenlohe, Presi- 
 dent of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs in 
 Bavaria, addressed a letter to the French and other Ca- 
 tholic Governments, calling on them to interfere and to 
 prevent the " fearful dangers " to which the Council would 
 expose the modern world. Next, the Spanish Minister, 
 Olozaga, hoped that the Council would not meet, or at 
 least would " not approve, sanction, or ratify the Syllabus, 
 which is in contradiction with modern civilisation." He 
 then threatened the Church with the hostility of a league 
 formed by the Governments of France, Italy, Portugal, 
 Spain, and Bavaria. An Italian infidel then took up the 
 game, and proposed an Anti-CEcumenical Council to meet 
 at Naples. A French infidel was invited, who promised 
 that his soul should be present, and said : " It is an efiica- 
 cious and noble idea to assemble a council of ideas to op- 
 pose to the council of dogmas. I accept it. On the one 
 side is theocratic obstinacy, on the other the human mind. 
 The human mind is a divine mind, its rays on the earth, 
 its star is above. ... If I cannot go to Naples, neverthe- 
 less I shall be there. My soul will be there. I cry. 
 Courage ! and I squeeze your hand." The reader will 
 forgive my repeating this trash, which is here inserted 
 only to show how the liberals and infidels of Europe rose 
 up at the instigation of Dr. DoUinger to meet the Coming 
 Council. 
 
106 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 ' About tlie month of June, in 1869, another despatch 
 had been addressed by Prince Hohenlohe to the other 
 Governments, inviting them to make common cause against 
 the Council. It was extensively believed to be inspired by 
 Prussia, the policy of which was thought to be, to put in 
 contrast the liberty accorded to its own Catholic subjects 
 in respect of the Council with the pedantic meddling of 
 the Bavarian Government. At this time General Mena- 
 brea, under the same inspiration, addressed a circular to 
 his diplomatic agents, proposing to the Powers to prevent 
 the assembling of the Council, on the ground of their not 
 having been invited to it. It was supposed at that time 
 that this policy also was secretly supported by Berlin. A 
 joint despatch was sent by Prince Hohenlohe and the 
 Italian Government to the French Government, urging 
 the withdrawal of the French troops from Eome during 
 the Council, to insure its freedom of deliberation.' 
 
 These preparations to oppose the Council were 
 made before it had assembled. It met on December 
 8, 18fi9. In the following January, Dr. DoUinger 
 received the freedom of a German city, in reward for 
 his attacks on the Holy See. 
 
 ' When the well-known postulatum of the Bishops, ask- 
 ing that the definition of the Papal Infallibility should be 
 proposed to the Council, was made public. Dr. DoUinger 
 openly assailed it ; and the French Minister of Foreign 
 Affairs, Count Daru, addressed a letter to th6 Holy See 
 with a view to prevent the definition. Rome was at that 
 time full of rumours and threats that the protection of 
 the French army would be withdrawn. I had personally 
 an opportunity of knowing that these threats were not 
 mere rumours. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 107 
 
 ' At the same moment, wMle France was attacking the 
 definition of the Pope's Infallibility, the Protestant Chan- 
 cellor of Austria, Count Von Beust, addressed himself to 
 the. Canons of the Schema published in the Augsburg Ga- 
 zette, which he declared would " provoke deplorable con- 
 flicts between the Church and State." Every European 
 Government from tha]b time put a pressure more or less 
 upon the Council to prevent the definition. 
 
 ' The source of this opposition, then, was Munich. The 
 chief agent, beyond all doubt, was one who in his earlier 
 days had been greatly venerated in Germany and in Eng- 
 land. Truth compels me to ascribe to Dr. DoUinger the 
 initiative in this deplorable attempt to coerce the Holy 
 See, and to overbear the liberty of the Bishops assembled 
 in Council. Prince Hohenlohe is assuredly no theologian. 
 The documents published by him came from another mind 
 and hand. Such was the opposition before and during the 
 Council. 
 
 ' What I have hitherto said to prove the conspiracy of 
 certain European Governments, and the intrigues of the 
 Old Catholics against the Council, both before the as- 
 sembling and during its sessions, would not have been 
 needed if the Diary of the Council by Professor Friedrich 
 had sooner come into my hands. I have been feeling in 
 the dark for proofs which he brings to light by a series of 
 astounding confessions. I had always believed in the 
 conspiracy; but I never knew how systematic and how 
 self-confident it was. I had always known that the 
 Gnostic vain-glory of German scientific historians was its 
 chief instigator ; but I never before imagined the stupen- 
 dous conceit or the -malevolent pride of its professors. A 
 critique of Professor Friedrich's Diary, by some strong 
 German hand, has appeared lately in one of our journals, 
 and I cannot refrain from giving certain passages in final 
 confirmation of what I have said above. 
 
108 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 ' And first as to tlie Governments. Professor Friedrich 
 puts into tJbe moutli of a diplomatist the following words : 
 " The means by which the greatest amount of influence 
 might be brought to bear on the Council would be a deter- 
 mined and plain manifestation of the public opinion of 
 Europe in favour of the minority. Clearly the Curia could 
 not prevent this ; and it would add strength and numbers 
 to the opposition, by giving it the assurance that, if at the 
 last moment it found itself obliged to protest and appeal 
 to the nation, the Governments and all intelligent laymen 
 would support it. This measure would also secure ' weak 
 and doubtful Bishops' " {Biary, p. 184). On the 26th of 
 December, 1869, Friedrich wrote, " That he was considered 
 by many persons to be residing in Rome as the represen- 
 tative of an approaching schism, if the majority obtained 
 the upper hand in the Council" (p. 41). He says in 
 another place : " It would not be the first time in the his- 
 tory of the Church that a schism had broken out. Church 
 history recounts many such, besides that of the Greeks " 
 (p. 196). The critic of Professor Friedrich's book writes 
 as follows : " The alliance between ' German science ' 
 and diplomacy was not productive of all the results which 
 at first had been looked for. Friedrich expresses himself 
 very bitterly on this point ; nevertheless he endeavoured 
 all the more to excite German science to fresh efforts." 
 Under date of the 27th of March (p. 202) he writes : " The 
 Governments are by degrees acting an almost ridiculous 
 part towards the Council — first boasts ; then embarrass- 
 ment connected with meaningless threats ; and at last the 
 confession that the right time has passed by, and that 
 the Curia has command of the situation. If German 
 science had not saved its position, and been able to estab- 
 lish a firm opposition in the Council, even in contradiction 
 to its own will, and kept it alive ; and if our Lord God had 
 not also set stupidity and ignorance on the side of the 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 109 
 
 Curia and of tlie majority, the Governments would have 
 been put to shame in the sight of the whole world. Prince 
 Hohenlohe, in fact, is the only statesman possessed of a 
 deeper insight in this question, and by degrees he has 
 come to be looked upon as belonging to the minority." 
 
 ' Of all the foreign sources from which the English 
 newspapers drew their inspiration, the chief perhaps was 
 the Augsburg Gazette. This paper has many titles to spe- 
 cial consideration. The infamous matter of Janus first 
 appeared in it under the form of articles. During the 
 Council it had in Rome at least one English contributor. 
 Its letters on the Council have been translated into Eng- 
 lish, and published by a Protestant bookseller in a volume 
 by Quirinus.' 
 
 A distinguished bishop of Qermany. one of the 
 minority opposed to the definition, whose cause the 
 Augsburg Gazette professed to serve, delivered at the 
 time his judgment on Janus, and the letters on the 
 Council. 
 
 ' Bishop Von Ketteler of Mainz publicly protested 
 against " the systematic dishonesty of the correspondent oi 
 the Augsburg Gazette." " It is a pure invention," he adds, 
 " that the Bishops named in that journal declared that 
 Dollinger represented, as to the substance of the question 
 (of Infallibility), the opinions of a majority of the German 
 Bishops." And this, he said, " is not an isolated error, but 
 part of a system which consists in the daring attempt to 
 publish false news, with the object of deceiving the German 
 public, according to a plan concerted beforehand." .... 
 " It will be necessary one day to expose in all their naked- 
 
 Preface to Vol. in. Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects, p. xxv. &c. 
 
110 AGGBESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 ness and abject mendacity the articles of the Augsburg 
 Gazette. They will present a formidable and lasting tes- 
 timony to the extent of injustice of which party-men, who 
 affect the semblance of superior education, have been 
 guilty against the Church." Again, at a later date, the 
 Bishop of Mainz found it necessary to address to his dio- 
 cese another public protest against the inventions of the 
 Augsburg Gazette. " The Augsburg Gazette," he says, "hardly 
 ever pronounces my name without appending to it a false- 
 hood." ..." It would have been easy for us to prove that 
 every Roman letter of the Augsburg Gazette contains gross 
 perversions and untruths. Whoever is conversant with 
 the state of things here, and reads these letters, cannot 
 doubt an instant that these errors are voluntary, and are 
 part of a concerted system designed to deceive the public. 
 If time fails me to Correct publicly this uninterrupted 
 series of falsehoods, it is impossible for me to keep silence 
 when an attempt is made with so much perfidy to misre- 
 present my own convictions." 
 
 ' Again, Bishop Hefele, commenting on the Roman cor- 
 respondents of the Augsburg Gazette, says : " It is evident 
 that there are people not bishops, but having relations with 
 the Council, who are not restrained by duty and conscience." 
 We had reason to believe that the names of these people, 
 both German and English, were well known to us. 
 
 ' Now the testimony of the Bishop of Mainz, as to the 
 falsehoods of these correspondents respecting Rome and 
 Germany, I can confirm by my testimony as to their treat- 
 ment of matters relating to Rome and England. I do not 
 think there is a mention of my own name without, as the 
 Bishop of Mainz says, the appendage of a falsehood. The 
 whole tissue of the correspondence is false.' ^ 
 
 • Petri Priv. part iii. pp. 4-7. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OP THE CIVIL POWEE. Ill 
 
 I have quoted all this to show the small chance 
 the people of England had of knowing the truth as 
 to the state and acts of the Council, and ako how 
 systematic was the opposition organised against it in 
 Germany. 
 
 After the suspension of the Council, the action of 
 this conspiracy, hitherto secret, became open. Dr. 
 Von Dollinger and certain Professors openly rejected 
 the Vatican Council, accusing it of innovation. They 
 therefore either took, or were called by, the name of 
 ' Old Catholics.' This schism has never been in one 
 stay. Its development has had three progressive 
 stages. At first the Old Catholics professed to hold 
 by the Council of Trent, and to reject only the 
 Council of the Vatican. As such they claimed to be 
 recognised by the Prussian law. But next, at a 
 meeting at Augsburg, a large infusion of German 
 Rationalists compelled them to enlarge their compre- 
 hension, and to include those who rejected most of 
 the doctrines of the Council of Trent. 
 
 Lastly, at Cologne and Bonn, they received the 
 accession of Anglicans, American Episcopalians, 
 Greeks, and various Protestants. 
 
 The Old Catholic schism, therefore, has lost its 
 meaning and its character, and has become a body 
 without distinctive creed. Dr. Von Dollinger, at 
 Bonn, last September, declared (if the report be 
 correct) that Old Catholics are not bound by the 
 Counqil of Trent. 
 
112 AGGRBSSIOIirs OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 In the sphere of theology and religion the move- 
 ment is already paralysed, and has no future; but in 
 the sphere of politics it has a great power of mischief, 
 I have already shown how the first acts of the 
 diplomatic and political hostility to the Council began 
 at Munich. There can be little doubt that it reached 
 Berlin through the Circular of Prince Hohenlohe, 
 the present German Ambassador at Paris. The 
 IJerlin Government supported the Old Catholic Pro- 
 fessors who rejected the Vatican Decrees, on the plea 
 that the Council of Trent was known to the law in 
 Prussia, but that the Council of the Vatican was not 
 known to it. It was exlex. Therefore the Govern- 
 ment recognised the legal status of the Old Catholics 
 who held to the Council of Trent. How they will stUl 
 recognise them as Old Catholics, now that they have 
 rejected the Council of Trent at Bonn, it is not so easy 
 to say. However, Dr. Reinkens was consecrated Bishop 
 by a Jansenist Prelate, and received from the Berlin 
 Government both legal recognition and a good salary. 
 We shall see hereafter that the Government would 
 thereby try to tempt the Catholic Clergy to its 
 friendship, and to use the ' Old Catholic ' schism as a 
 weapon against the Catholic Church. The ' Old 
 Catholic ' schism has an attraction for certain minds 
 in which there is a strong hankering after the Catholic 
 Church without the courage to suffer for the truth's 
 sake. An attempt, we have been told, was made to 
 set up an ' Old Catholic ' Church in London, but it 
 met with little encouragement. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OP THE CIVIL POWER. 113 
 
 There is not a doubt that the Bei'lin Government 
 aims at changing all the Catholics in Germanj'- into 
 Old Catholics. 
 
 The Old Catholics, in their appeal to the Civil 
 Power, are doing what the Arians did after the 
 Council of NicEea. They have been, and they will be, 
 the instigators of persecution against the Catholic 
 Church. But they are blindly doing God's will. 
 When the Church has been purified, their place will 
 know them no more. 
 
 To return to the politicians and diplomatists. 
 What was believed as to the conspiracy at Munich 
 before the Council met has since been confirmed by the 
 letters of Count Arnim, which ascribe his own action 
 to the instigation of Dr. DoUinger. The Berlin Cor- 
 respondent of the Daily Telegraph^ after noticing the 
 discrepancy between the despatch of Count Arnim, 
 published by Prince Bismarck, and his ' Pro Memoria,' 
 which appeared in the Vienna Presse — the first 'treat- 
 ing the dogma of Infallibility as a mere theological dis- 
 sertation,' and the second, ' seeing in it an event that 
 must overthrow Catholicism and the peace of Catholic 
 States ' — ^proceeds to explain the contradiction thus : — 
 
 ' When Prmce Holieiilolie, as leader of Bavarian foreign 
 affairs, sent his well-known Circular to different Powers, 
 explaining the dangers of that dogma, the German Chan- 
 cellor applied to Count Arnim, who answered that the 
 Bavarian Minister exaggerated the danger, being influenced 
 
 ' Tallet Newspaper, Oct. 31, 1874, p. 546. 
 I 
 
114 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 by DoUinger. After this answer was sent to Berlin, Count 
 von Arnim went on his holidays, and in passing Munich 
 visited Prince Hohenlohe. There they spoke about 
 Infallibility, and Prince Hohenlohe acknowledged that the 
 Circular was written under Dollinger's inspiration. The 
 Prince asked the Count to visit DoUinger, which he did. 
 DoUinger convincingly explained to Arnim the importance 
 of the dogma ; and, on his return, Arnim tried everything 
 to prevent the result of the CouncU by repeatedly advising 
 Prince Bismarck to interfere ; so the cha:5ige, in Amim's 
 opinion, must be traced to DoUinger.' 
 
 Before we enter upon tlie present conflict in 
 Germany, so carelessly touched and dismissed by Mr. 
 Gladstone, it is necessary to record the fact that, in 
 the year 1849, the 15th Article of the German Con- 
 stitution affirmed, thait 'Every religious Society shall 
 order and manage its own affairs independently, but 
 shall remain subject to the general power of the State.' 
 The Prussian Constitution also recognised this inde- 
 pendence. Such was the law until 1872. Under this 
 law the Catholics were loyal, peaceful, and of unim- 
 peachable allegiance to the State. They served it in 
 peace ; they fought for it in war. They helped to 
 found the Empire in their blood. Who made the 
 change ? The Government of Berlin. The laws of 
 1849 have been violated, and a series of laws, which 
 I will hereafter describe, have been forced upon the 
 Catholics of Prussia. The conflict was thus begun, 
 not by the Catholics nor by the Church, but by the Civil 
 Power. Prince Von Bismarck is so conscious of this 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 115 
 
 fact, that he has spared no accxisation, how wild soever, 
 against the Catholics to disguise and to mask it. The 
 laws resisted now by the Bishops and Catholics of 
 Prussia are not the old laws of their country, but 
 innovations, intolerable to conscience, newly intro- 
 duced, and inflicted upon them by the fine and 
 imprisonment of five Bishops and 1,400, it is even 
 said 1,700, clergy. Surely the day is past when any- 
 one believes that the Falck Laws were caused by 
 the Vatican Council. The French war was scarcely 
 ended when Prince Von Bismarck accused the 
 Catholics of Germany of disloyalty and conspiracy 
 against the Empire. They had not even had time to 
 be disloyal or to conspire. The CathoHc blood shed 
 in the war was not yet dry. He said then, as he 
 said the other day, that he had secret evidence. Not 
 a particle has ever been produced. For a time 
 Englishmen were perplexed. They did not know 
 what to believe. They could not conceive that Prince 
 Von Bismarck would make such charges without 
 evidence; but, little by little, the truth has come out. 
 The Old Catholic conspiracy has been laid open to 
 the world. . The manly and inflexible constancy of 
 the Catholic Bishops, Priests, and people of Germany 
 has roused the attention of Englishmen, and they 
 have come to know that no body of men were more 
 gladly loyal to the Prussian Government than the 
 Catholics on the basis of the laws of their country 
 from 1848 to 1872; that no change whatsoever, by a 
 
 I 2 
 
116 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWEE. 
 
 jot or tittle, was made on their part; that, on the 
 part of Government, a new and elaborate legislation, 
 anti-Catholic and intolerable to conscience, was in- 
 troduced in 1872. The whole innovation was on the 
 part of Government. The new laws excluded the 
 Clergy from the schools; banished the religious orders; 
 made Government consent necessary to the nomina- 
 tion of a Parish Priest; fined and imprisoned Bishops 
 for the exercise of their Spiritual office ; subjected to 
 the State the education of the Clergy, even to the 
 examination for orders ; and established a final tri- 
 bunal of Ecclesiastical appeal in Berlin. And yet men 
 were found who had still the hardihood to say that the 
 Church had begun the conflict. At last. Dr. Fried- 
 berg, Professor of Law at Leipsic, and one of the 
 chief advisers of Government in its Ecclesiastical 
 policy, let out the real cause. With an incautious 
 candour he has told us the truth. 
 
 I will take the account of Dr. Friedberg's book, 
 ' The German Empire and the Catholic Church,' from 
 a pamphlet of the Bishop of Mayence, entitled, ' The 
 New Prussian Bills on the Position of the Church in 
 reference to the State.' ^ 
 
 Bishop Ketteler begins by asking, 'What could 
 prompt the Liberal party to denounce as Ultramon- 
 tane presumption, and as a surrender of the essential 
 
 * A translation made in Germany has been published by Messrs. 
 Burns & Gates, 17 Portman Street. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 117 
 
 rights of the State, that which, in the years 1848- 
 1850, it had acknowledged as the necessary " conse- 
 quence of its own principles " ' (p. 9) ? 
 
 Bishop Ketteler answers, ' The true reason of the 
 thorough systematic change of the Liberal party, as weU. 
 as of all those measures aimed against the lawful rights 
 of the Church, is " the spiritual power of the Church 
 based upon the foundation of freedom " ' (p. 11). 
 
 He then quotes an Address of Dr. Friedberg, in 
 which he says, ' The Doctrinaires will still tell us 
 that the all-sufficient remedy of this is the separation 
 of the Church from the State ; but, on the contrary, 
 under actual circumstances, this would be a very 
 injurious measure, for the Church has become too much 
 United to the people.' 
 
 He then shows that wherever the Church is free, 
 as in the United States, it is powerful, because it is 
 the Church of the people. ' What would be the con- 
 sequence,' he asks, ' with us if the Church were freed 
 from the control of the State?' ' On the contrary,' 
 says Dr. Friedberg, ' as the whole question has be- 
 come now one of main force, the State must go so far 
 as to deprive the Church of her influence over the 
 people, in order that its own power may be firmly 
 established' (pp. 10, 11). 
 
 Dr. Newman, more than thirty years ago, said 
 that Governments establish and endow Churches as 
 people cut the wings of magpies, that they may hop 
 upon the lawn and pick up worms. ' Liberals love a 
 tame Church.' 
 
118 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 I quote this in answer to those who have been 
 taunting the German Bishops with complaining of 
 persecution and of yet holding to their legal status: 
 Pharaoh has taught all oppressors 'not to let the 
 people go.' 
 
 ' Our crime as endangering the State,' says Bishop 
 Ketteler, ' consists in this — that wheresoever the 
 people and the Church are free, the people turn to 
 the Church, and not to the doctrines of the Liberal 
 party' (p. 13). 
 
 ' Here we have the whole undisguised truth. To 
 separate the Christian people from the Church, to 
 deprive it of freedom, to subjugate it by force to 
 Liberal Statecraft and human wisdom, thus reducing 
 it to a Liberal State -religion — this is the triumph of 
 modern science and knowledge which Liberalism and 
 its professors offer to the German people ' (p. 14). 
 
 Bishop Ketteler then goes on to give Dr. Friedberg's 
 argument: 'The Protestant Church is, at this day, 
 an essential political agent — solely by its opposition to 
 Catholicism.' 
 
 Dr. Von Holzendorff says of the Protestant 
 Church, that 'it has no intellectual unity, because 
 a short-sighted orthodoxy has sown and fostered 
 indifference towards the Church; and also from the 
 fact that the Protestant Church did not create a con- 
 stitution suited to its own spirit. Who could count 
 upon the High Consistory Court of Berlin outliving 
 for a day the separation of the Church from the State ? 
 
AGGEESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWEE. 119 
 
 or that the fiercest party strife would not break it up 
 into sects? Bvit what an opportunity for the compact 
 mass of the Catholic Church as opposed to these dis- 
 membered elements/ &c.-^ This lets in light. 
 
 Bishop Ketteler then sums up : ' These confessions 
 of a pretended Liberal deserve notice. 
 
 ' First, the Protestant Church is " an essential 
 political agent," and especially so by her opposition to 
 Catholicism. 
 
 ' Secondly, the Protestant Church cannot endure 
 freedom and independence. "After separation from 
 the State it would be ' dismembered.' The High 
 Consistory of Berlin would scarcely survive a day." 
 
 ' Thirdly, out of these dismembered elements ap. 
 increase would fall to the Catholic Church. Princi- 
 ples truly Liberal. No longer shall the power of 
 truth under the protection of equal freedom decide 
 between' the different creeds. In the hands of the 
 Liberals the Protestant Chui-ch is to become a " poli- 
 tical agent," " a tool of the State," to fight against 
 Catholicism. Even liberty of conscience on the part 
 of the people is to be destroyed to avert the danger of 
 their turning to the Catholic Church. 
 
 ' Lastly, Dr. Friedberg refused to separate the 
 Church from the State, because it would be " a severity 
 and an injustice," forsooth, to the Old CathoHcs. If 
 
 ' Year-Book of the German Empire. By Dr. F. von Holzendorff, 
 Leipzig, p. 478, 1872. 
 
120 AGGRESSIONS OP THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 the Church were set free, the Government would lose 
 " an immediate support and a co-operation so necessary 
 to the State for the internal reform of the Church." ' 
 
 The . Bishop then sums up as follows : — The 
 ■Government has changed its relations to the Catholic 
 Church, ' not because the Catholic Church is dangerous 
 to the State, nor because it is hostile to the Empire, 
 nor because it will oyerbear the State; these are 
 not the motives, though they are daily expressed in 
 ParHament and in the press by the Liberal party, 
 to show that the Catholic Church must be robbed 
 of her liberty, but because the German people must 
 be torn away by force from the Church ; and in order 
 to attain this end, the Protestant State Church and 
 the " Old Catholics " are to be used as weapons to 
 fight the Catholic Church, and to destroy it inter- 
 nally,' &c. (p. 17). 
 
 Such is the end and aim : now for the means. Dr. 
 •Friedberg says, ' One must first attempt to draw oiF 
 the waters carefully, letting them flow, into other 
 channels, and conducting them into reservoirs ; what 
 remains will then be easily absorbed into the air ' 
 (p. 19). In other words, dry up the Church; draw 
 from it all intellectual, moral, and spiritual influence 
 over the people; paralyse the action of its Pastors; 
 substitute Bureaus, Registrars, Professors, State 
 Teachers, and State Officials; make its worship a 
 State Eitualism, a ceremonial of subjective feelings, 
 not of objective Truth. This done, religion will soon 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 121 
 
 evaporate. The sum of all, Bishop Ketteler says, 
 is that 
 
 ' The State will regard the Church as a historical estab- 
 lished institution, which may be very useful to the State 
 by fulfilling its peculiar and necessary mission for the 
 civilisation of the German people, but which, on the other 
 hand, may become dangerous to the State, and has be- 
 come so. 
 
 ' For the first reason the Church shall be not only 
 tolerated but also be authorised by the State, For the 
 second reason, it is to be rendered harmless.' 
 
 'This will dry up the stream, and the rest will evaporate.' 
 
 After this I think even an English Nonconformist 
 would read the TJnam Sanctam with new eyes. 
 
 Kow, the proximate means of accomplishing this 
 draining of the Pontine Marshes is ' the inward and 
 outward release ' of the Clergy from all dependence , 
 on powers ' outside our nation,' and ' strangers to 
 our national consciousness ; ' that is to say, a spiri- 
 tual blockade against the Church throughout the 
 world, or ' our German consciousness ' against Christi- 
 anity. 
 
 The inward release of the Clergy is to be effected 
 ' through their education ' (pp. 29, 30). Their educa- 
 tion is to be as follows : — 
 
 1. Every Priest is to go through an examination 
 at a German College. 
 
 2. He is to study Theology for .three years in a 
 
 German State University. 
 
122 AGGRESSIONS OP THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 All independent seminaries and religious colleges 
 for boys are interdicted. 
 
 3. He is finally to be examined in the presence of 
 a Commissary of tbe Government. 
 
 4. The State has the superior direction of all 
 instruction of the Clergy. 
 
 5. It fixes the method of their teaching. 
 
 6. It decides the qualification of their teachers. 
 
 The Bishop is to be, in all these relations, depen- 
 dent on the State ; the State forms the Catholic 
 Clergy to its own fashion ; and the Bishop has only 
 to receive them and to give them cure of souls. 
 
 The Bishop of Mayence justly says : ' A Clergy in- 
 wardly deprived of faith, falling under the bondage of 
 unbelief and the spirit of the times, would, no doubt, 
 become the perfect ideal of national education ' (pp. 
 35, 36). 
 
 Next for the ' outward release ' of the Clergy. 
 First it means that the State will regulate the 
 appointment and deposition, and the correctional 
 discipline of the Clergy by local Civil authorities, 
 and partly by a Supreme Royal court for Clerical 
 a,ffairs. 
 
 The Clergy are therefore perfectly released : 
 
 First, from the jurisdiction of the Head of 
 
 the Church. 
 Secondly, from the jurisdiction of their own 
 Bishops. 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 123. 
 
 The effect of this release is : 
 
 First, that any fit and worthy Priest may be 
 kept out of the cure of souls and all 
 spiritual offices by the veto of the State. 
 Second, that any unfit or unworthy, any im- 
 moral or heretical, Priest may be supported 
 in defiance of his Bishop, to the scandal 
 of the Church and the perdition of Souls. 
 An unlimited veto is an unlimited right of 
 patronage. 
 
 What kind of man will grow up out of the soil 
 of State Universities, and under the sun of State 
 Patronage ? 
 
 What Priest of fidelity to the Church and of per- 
 sonal dignity of character will sell or lend himself to 
 such a despotism ? 
 
 We have read lately a little too much of the 
 ' pliancy and servility ' and ' degradation ' of the 
 Catholic Episcopate. What is the ideal of a Bishop 
 in those who assail the Vatican Council and sympathise 
 with the Old Catholics? By these laws the Clergy 
 and Bishops are liberated or released from the foreign 
 oppression of Rome. The Pope cannot suspend one 
 of them. But the Royal Court may depose them 
 all. Is Dr. Reiukens, with his sixteen thousand 
 thalers a year, under the Falck Laws, independent, 
 high-minded, and manly? Is the Archbishop of 
 Posen, in his prison, pliant, servile, and degraded? 
 This seems to me to ' put light for darkness, and dark- 
 
124 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 ness for light.' It would be an anxious sign of our 
 time and state if an inverted moral sense should 
 grow upon us. 
 
 The Bishop of Mayence finally sums up this 
 external release of their Clergy as follows : 
 
 These laws amount to — 
 
 1. Separation of the Church in Germany from Rome. 
 
 2. Annihilation of the powers of the Bishops. 
 
 3. The breaking up of all authority and discipline over 
 the Clergy and people. 
 
 4. Unlimited control of the State over the Clergy, and 
 
 over religion. 
 
 5. Universal moral corruption of the whole Church. 
 
 6. Introduction and encouragement of every form of 
 error contrary to faith and to Christianity among 
 the teachers. 
 
 7. Loss of Christian faith among the people. 
 
 The Bishop then protests against these laws as — 
 
 * A violation of all Christian liberties, and of all Constitu- 
 tional rights ; as an attempt to force on the Catholic 
 Church the Royal Supremacy of the Protestant Reforma- 
 tion ; as a violation of the Divine constitution and autho- 
 rity of the Catholic Church ; and, finally, as leading men 
 back again into the Csesarism of the Pagan world, in 
 which the temporal and spiritual sovereignty were united 
 in one person. The separation of the two powers which 
 the Divine Pounder of Christianity has introduced for the 
 protection of the liberties of human life in faith, conscience 
 and religion, would be once more extinguished in Germany. 
 It would then be easy to overthrow, one after another, the 
 other safeguards of the freedom of the people. The army. 
 
AGGEESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWEE. 125 
 
 the official State press, or State school, or State Church, all 
 united together would transplant the old despotism of the 
 Pagans to German soil' (p. 49). 
 
 He concludes in these words : — : 
 
 ' Finally, these laws are in their whole substance revolu- 
 tionary, and a denial of the historical positive development 
 of the rights, and an uprooting of all the constitutional 
 privileges, of the people. They will bring about a conflict 
 with the Catholic Church, with its essential constitution 
 and its doctrines ; they attempt to force upon the Catholic 
 Church a constitution similar to that of the Protestant 
 Church. By placing all earthly power in the hands of 
 one man they introduce the system of the heathen despot- 
 ism into Germany. 
 
 ' May God guard our German Fatherland from the 
 disastrous consequences of such laws.' 
 
 Before this noble protest was published these 
 Bills became law. I hope no Englishman will now 
 say that the conflict in Germany was brought on by 
 the Church. The pretext of Vatican Council is as 
 transparently false as the plea of the wolf against the 
 lamb. Such, then, are the Falck Laws ; and I have 
 read no part of Mr. Gladstone's ' Expostulation ' with 
 more sadness than the following words : — 
 
 ' I am not competent to give any opinion upon, the 
 particulars of that struggle. The institutions of Germany, 
 and the relative estimate of State power and individual 
 freedom, are materially different from ours.' ^ 
 
 The Vatican Decrees, ^c. p. 48. 
 
126 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 Are faith and conscience ' institutions ' to be 
 ^ estimated ' ' relatively ' ? Is religious freedom, to 
 the vindication of which Mr. Gladstone has givein a 
 long public life, a matter to be measured by geo- 
 graphical or political conditions? I do not recognise 
 this voice. 
 
 It may, I think, with safety be affirmed, that in 
 the lamentable conflict now waging in Germany, the 
 Berlin Government, urged on by the conspiracy of 
 the ' Old Catholics,' aided, no doubt, at a later stage, 
 by the pseudo-Liberals of Prussia, has been the 
 aggressor. 
 
 The same could be abundantly proved in respect 
 to the persecution of the Church in Switzerland. I 
 have before me full and authentic evidence of the 
 aggression of the Cantonal Governments of BMe, 
 Soleure, and Berne and others. But I will not 
 prolong this chapter by a recital. The proof will be 
 found in the Appendix C. 
 
 It would be as easy also to show that in Brazil 
 the Government was the aggressor. The Bishop of 
 Olinda is at this moment in penal servitude, for 
 refusing religious rites at the burial of an excom- 
 municated person. 
 
 This will, I hope, be deemed a sufficient proof of 
 my third proposition, which in sum is this, that the 
 present collisions between the Civil and Spiritual 
 Powers have not been caused by the Church. There 
 is everywhere a party aiming at the subversion of 
 
AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWEE. 127 
 
 Christianity. The great barrier in their way is the 
 CathoHc Church. They are now openly conspiring 
 for its overthrow. 
 
 In England our old craters are extinct and the 
 mountains are quiet. Such a conflict has, happily, not 
 ^et been rekindled among us. No change on the part 
 of the Catholic Church, of a kind to provoke such 
 a conflict, either has been or will be made. The 
 declining to accept a -scheme of education based 
 on principles dangerous to Catholic Faith is certainly 
 no such cause. To reject a tempting gift is no 
 aggression. If we are again to be distracted by 
 religious conflicts, the responsibility will rest un- 
 dividedly upon the head of anyone who shall break 
 our present public confidence and peace. And that 
 misdeed would be indelibly written in our history. 
 
128 TEUBAND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 I WILL now go on to the fourth proposition — that by 
 these collisions with the Church the Civil Powers 
 everywhere are at this time destroying the first prin- 
 ciple of their own stability. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has represented me as saying that 
 the civil order of all Christendom is the oifspring of 
 the Temporal Power, and has the Temporal Power for 
 its keystone; that on the destruction of the Temporal 
 Power "the laws of nations would at once fall in 
 ruins." ' 
 
 Understood as I wrote these words I fully affirm 
 them; understood as they may be in this garbled 
 form, they have an exaggeration which is not mine. 
 I was speaking strictly of the Temporal Power of the 
 Pope over his own State : whereby, as a King among 
 Kings, he sustained the Christian character of Sove- 
 reignty. I was not speaking of Temporal power 
 over the Temporal Government of Princes. And I 
 was speaking in defence at a time when every journal 
 in the country, with hardly an exception, was day 
 after day assailing, and I must add misrepresent- 
 ing, the origin and office of the Temporal Govern- 
 ment of the Pope. My own words were as follows : — 
 
TRUE AND EALSE PROGRESS. 129 
 
 ' Now, the last point on which I will dwell is this : that 
 as the Church of God has created — and that specially 
 through the action of the Supreme Pontiffs in their civil 
 mission to the world — this vast and fair fabric of Christian 
 Europe, so it has perpetually sustaiued it, I ask, what 
 has given it coherence ? What is it that has kept alive 
 the governing principle among men, but that pure faith 
 or knowledge of God which has gone forth from the Holy 
 See, and has filled the whole circumference of Christendom? 
 What has bound men together in the respect due to 
 mutual rights, but that pure morality which was delivered 
 to the Church to guard, and of which the Holy See is the 
 supreme interpreter? These two streams — which, as 
 St. Cyprian says in his treatise on the unity of the Church, 
 are like the rays that flow from the sun, 'or like the 
 streams that rise and break from the fountain — illumi- 
 nated and inundated the whole Christian world. Now, I 
 ask, what has preserved this in security, but the infalli- 
 bility of the Church of God vested chiefly and finally in the 
 person of the Vicar of Jesus Christ? It will rather 
 belong to the next lecture to note how, by contrast, this 
 may be proved, and how those nations, which have 
 separated themselves from the unity of the Catholic 
 Church, and therefore are in opposition to the temporal 
 sovereignty of Eome, have lost these two great principles 
 of their preservation. I ask, then, what has preserved 
 Christian Europe, but the principle of obedience — the 
 precept of submission, which has been taught throughout 
 the whole of its circuit by the Cliurch of God, especially 
 through the mouths of its Pontiffs ? By them subjects 
 have been taught obedience and rulers have learned 
 justice. What, I ask, has limited monarchy? What has 
 made monarchy a free institution, and supreme power 
 compatible with the personal liberty of the people, but the 
 
 K 
 
130 TEUE AND FALSE PROGEESS. 
 
 limitations wliicli tlie Holy See, acting throngh its Pontiffs, 
 has imposed upon tlie Princes of tlie world ? Does any- 
 body doubt these two propositions ? To them I would 
 say, the Pontiffs, with their temporal power, have been 
 accused of despotism ; at least, then, let us give them the 
 credit of having taught the people to submit. They have 
 been also accused of tyranny over Princes ; at least let us 
 give them the honour of having taiight Kings that their 
 power is limited. The dread chimera at which the English 
 people especially stands in awe, — the deposing power of 
 the Pope, — what was it but that supreme arbitration, 
 whereby the highest power in the world, the Vicar of the 
 Incarnate Son of God, anointed high-priest and supreme 
 temporal ruler (i.e. as Sovereign in his own State), sat in 
 his tribunal impartially to judge between nation and 
 nation, between people and prince, between sovereign 
 and subject ? The deposing power grew up by the pro- 
 vidential action of God in the world, teaching subjects 
 obedience and princes clemency. 
 
 ' Now, in this twofold power of the Popes, which has 
 been, I may say, the centre of the diplomacy of Christian 
 Europe, we see the sacerdotal and royal powers vested in 
 one person, the two powers of king and priest, which are 
 the two conservative principles of the Christian world. 
 All Christian kings and all Christian priests stand related 
 to the one person who bears in fulness that twofold 
 character] and it is by adherence to that one person 
 as the centre of the civil and spiritual system, which 
 grew up under his hand, that Christian Europe is 
 preserved. I should say further, that, vast and sohd 
 as Christendom may seem, like a vault of stone, the 
 temporal power of the Pope is the keystone ; strike it out, 
 and the family of nations would at once fall in ruins.' ' 
 
 ' Temporal Power of the Popes, lecture ii. pp 44-47. (Burns; 
 1862.) 
 
TRUE AND I"ALSE PROGRESS. 131 
 
 In the very same chapter from which Mr. Glad- 
 stone has quoted, at page 46, the following state- 
 ments occur at pages 32 and 33 : — ■ 
 
 (1) 'Our Divine Lord committed to His Church 
 and to His Vicar — the head on earth of that Church — 
 His Spiritual sovereignty, reserving to Himself His 
 Temporal or providential sovereignty, . . . There- 
 fore the Spiritual sovereignty of the Church is a 
 Divine institution, and has a power directly ordained 
 of God. (2) There are other powers in the world 
 which are indirectly ordained of God — viz. all tem- 
 poral sovereignties (3) By an indirect but 
 
 Divine providence our Divine Lord has liberated His 
 Vicar upon earth, in the plenitude of His Spiritual 
 sovereignty, from all civil subjection. ... (4) By 
 the same Providence — indirect, indeed, but never- 
 theless Divine — our Lord clothed His Vicar with the 
 
 possession of a patrimony (5) Upon the basis 
 
 of this temporal possession our Lord has raised a 
 temporal power by His indirect operation, and there- 
 fore the temporal power of the Pope is a Divine 
 ordinance, having a Divine sanction, at least equally 
 with every other sovereignty in the world.' ^ It may 
 not be amiss to add, lest it should be thought that 
 this statement is merely a private opinion, that the 
 text from which I quote was translated into Italian, 
 in Rome, in 1862, was examined by the censorship, 
 and printed at the Propaganda press. 
 
 ' Temporal Power of the Popes, pp. 32, 33. 
 K 3 
 
132 TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 This is still my unchanged belief, confirmed by the 
 twelve years since these words were spoken, and by 
 the shattered state of Christian Europe in 1875. 
 Now I am not afraid of defending the condensed 
 statement of Donoso Cortes : ' The history of 
 Civilisation is the histoiy of Christianity ; the history 
 of Christianity is the history of the Church ; the 
 history of the Church is the history of the Pontiffs,' 
 St. Augustine's work De Civitate Dei is enough to 
 prove that the civilisation of the old world had run 
 itself out by incurable corruption, and that the 
 civilisation of the modern world is the new creation 
 of Christianity. Two other witnesses would also 
 prove this : St. Paul in his first chapter to the 
 Romans, and Dr. DoUinger in his work on ' The 
 Jewish and the Gentile Nations.' I am indeed one 
 of those who still believe that we owe Christian 
 homes to Christian marriage, that we owe Christian 
 men to Christian homes, that we owe Christian 
 nations to Christian men, and that the transmission 
 of national Christianity depends on Christian educa- 
 tion. We owe, therefore, the civilisation of Europe 
 to Christian nations, and we owe the whole, not 
 to ' modern thought,' but to Christianity, 
 
 Moreover, I know of no agent by which Chris- 
 tianity was thus brought to bear upon mankind 
 but the Christian Church ; and, lastly, the heads of 
 the Christian Church were the chief legislators, 
 guides, judges, and protectors of this • Christian 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGKESS. 133 
 
 civilisation. I cannot think that Mr. Gladstone 
 would deny this, or that we have read history, all 
 this while, in an inverted sense. 
 
 But there is another sense in which the Temporal 
 Power of the Popes — that is, their local sovereignty — 
 has in an especial manner created modern Europe. 
 To them and to the Civil Government of the Patri- 
 monies of the Church, when the Byzantine Empire 
 had ceased to protect the West, may be ascribed the 
 Christendom of which Charlemagne was the first 
 Temporal Head. From that germ the Christian civi- 
 lisation of Europe has been propagated by Christian 
 marriage. Christian education, and Christian faith. 
 Until ' Luther's mighty trumpet' was blown it was 
 bound together by unity of faith, unity of worship, 
 and unity of jurisdiction under one Head, and that 
 Head united in himself the twofold character of 
 Christian Pontiff and Christian King. Luther's blast 
 has brought this down at last. First, by regalism 
 in Protestant nations ; and, secondly, by revolution 
 in Catholic states. The principles of 1789 are Luther- 
 anism applied to politics. We have already reached 
 the time of civil marriage, of secular education, and of 
 States in their public life without Christianity. But 
 let us not think that we have reached our place of rest. 
 Luther's blast, I fear, has yet more to do. Faith is dying 
 out of the public life and action of all Governments. 
 There is hardly a Catholic or a Christian Government 
 left. The people they govern are divided in religion, 
 
134 TKUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 and ' the religious difficulty ' forces them to become 
 simply secular in legislation and in action. So long 
 as there was a Christian world, the Head of the 
 Christian Church was recognised as the Vicar of a 
 Divine Master, and had a Temporal Power among 
 Christian Sovereigns, and a sovereignty of his own ; 
 but now that the nations have become secular, and no 
 longer recognise his sacred office, his direction in tem- 
 poral things is rejected by their rejection of faith, I 
 am not arguing or lamenting, but explaining our 
 actual state. And what is now the state and condition 
 of the Christian world ? Where are the Christian laws 
 which formed it in the beginning? I was not far 
 wrong in saying that the Temporal Power of the Head 
 of the Christian Church was the keystone of a world 
 which has crumbled from its Christian unity into a 
 dismembered array of secular and conflicting nations, 
 of armed camps and retarded maturity. And it is 
 with this ' progress and modern civilisation that the 
 Koman Pontiff is invited to conform and to reconcile 
 himself.' This is the sum and exposition of ' modern 
 thought,' save only that it omits the Agnostic theology 
 De Deo non existente, and the anthropology of Apes. 
 Mr, Gladstone quotes this condemned proposition, 
 recited in the Syllabus, as a gravamen against the Pope 
 and the Catholics of these kingdoms. We have no 
 desire to see the Christian Commonwealth of England 
 decompose before our eyes under Luther's blast. We 
 are content with the English Monarchy, founded and 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 135 
 
 consolidated by our Catholic forefathers ; and with 
 our English Constitution, of which the solid and un- 
 shaken base and the dominant constructive lines are 
 Christian and Catholic. We Englishmen were once 
 perfectly one in faith. Luther's blast has given us 
 nearly three hundred years of penal laws, bitter conten- 
 tions, a ' bloody reign of Mary,' a relentless shower, 
 indeed, between two seas of blood, in the reigns of her 
 father and her sister; and when these horrors re- 
 laxed, streams of blood stiU flowed on for another hun- 
 dred years. For nearly three centuries we have been 
 divided in politics, because politics were mixed up 
 with religion. Our Legislature teemed with penal 
 laws such as the world had never seen, and that 
 against nearly a half of the English population. We 
 were weakened because we were divided ; haunted by 
 suspicions of conspiracy, and scared by fancied dan- 
 gers, because we were consciously doing wrong, as 
 Prussia is at this day. But now for fifty years we 
 have had peace, because we have common interests, and 
 a solid commonweal. The three Kingdoms are without 
 anxiety and without fear. And why? Because we 
 have eliminated religious conflicts from our Legisla- 
 tion, because we have learned to be just, because we 
 have learned also that the Civil Ruler may punish what 
 men do, but not what men think, unless they issue 
 in acts against the State. All men, so far as con- 
 science and faith extend, are now equal before the law. 
 No man is molested for his religion. Although this is 
 
136 TRUE AND PALSE PROGEESS. 
 
 not the golden age of unity in truth, which the Chris- 
 tian Church once created and Pius IX. declares to be 
 the only civilisation and the only progress to which 
 he can conform himself, though he tolerates what he 
 cannot cure ; nevertheless, it is a silver age in which we 
 can peacefully accept what we cannot either justify as 
 the will of God, or extol as the normal state of the 
 Christian world. In our shattered state of religious 
 belief and worship there is no way of solid civil peace, 
 but in leaving all men free in their amplest liberty 
 of faith. It is because this is vital to our welfare as 
 an Empire, and because, as it seems to me, the late 
 sudden and needless aggression on the Cathohc 
 religion is dangerous to the social and political 
 tranquillity of these Kingdoms, that I have pointed to 
 Germany, as a warning. A monarchy of a thousand 
 years is a majestic thing in this modern world of fleet- 
 ing dynasties and of chronic revolutions. We possess 
 a royal lineage the least broken and the most closely 
 united to the people that the world has ever seen, 
 save one. The line of Pontiffs ruled before the 
 crowned heads of to-day came into existence. It has 
 been the vital chord of the Christian people of the 
 world. Next after the hne of Pontiffs, there is 
 nothing in history more time-honoured or grander 
 than the Monarchy of Alfred, which reigns to this day. 
 Does Mr. Gladstone think that the Vatican Council 
 binds me to desire its overthrow ? Next to seeing again 
 the laws and the faith of good King Edward restored 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 137 
 
 througliout the land, we desire to see the Sovereign 
 of England reigning by equal laws over a people 
 united at least in eveiy thing that is right and just 
 and lawful in this world, if indeed they must still be 
 in higher laws and truths divided. 
 
 One thing is most certain. Catholics will never lend 
 so much as a finger or a vote to overturn by political 
 action the Christianity which still lingers in our public 
 laws. They will cherish all of it that remains in our 
 popular education. If we could see the tradition of 
 our national Christianity healed of its wounds and 
 taken up into the full life and unity of perfect faith 
 by the spiritual forces of conviction and of persua- 
 sion, as that supernatural unity was created in the 
 beginning, we should rejoice with thanksgiving; but 
 no Catholic will diminish by a shade the Christianity 
 which still survives. We cannot, indeed, co-operate 
 by any direct action to uphold what we believe to be 
 erroneous ; but it will find no political hostility in us. 
 They who wish its overthrow would pull it down not 
 for what we think erroneous in it, but for what is true ; 
 and what is true in it we revere as the truth of God. 
 In our divided religious state the public revenues, once 
 paid into the treasury, have passed beyond the indivi- 
 dual conscience. Thenceforward they fall under the 
 impartial administration of our mixed commonwealth. 
 I am not responsible for the appHcation of them. My 
 conscience is not touched if public revenues are given 
 to a Presbyterian or to a Baptist School. My conscience 
 
138 TBUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 is not ill at ease even if grants are made to a school 
 in whicli no religion at all is taught. A people 
 divided in religion pays its taxes, and a Parliament 
 divided in religion votes the public money by an 
 equitable balance for our manifold uses in the midst 
 of our manifold divisions. No one has a right to 
 control this mixed administration to satisfy his private 
 conscience, or to claim to have it all his own way. 
 No Secularist can regard my schools with more aver- 
 sion than I regard his; but I am passive when he 
 receives his share of the public motiey. I trust the 
 day will never come when any one section or sect 
 among us shall gain a domination over the equities 
 which render tolerable our divided state. I hope 
 no Puritans will rise up again to do in England, by 
 the help of Secularists and unbelievers, what they did 
 in Maryland. There they destroyed the fairest pro- 
 mise of peace that a wrecked world ever saw. England 
 at this time is Maryland upon an imperial scale. He 
 who shall break our religious peace will go down to 
 history with those whose names EngUshmen try to 
 forget. 
 
 It is for this reason that I lament when six mil- 
 lions of British subjects are told by a voice of great 
 authority that they are loyal indeed, but in spite of 
 their religion. When men are so taught they are 
 very apt to learn the lesson. They will be ready to 
 say, if by my whole life I am loyal, but by my religion 
 I ought, as I am told, to be disloyal, I am, therefore, 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 139 
 
 either a traitor or a heretic. If I am a heretic I shall 
 lose my soul ; but for imputed treason I can only lose 
 my life. If men of Mr. Gladstone's age and fame say 
 these things, the masses will be very apt to believe 
 them. And if he should also say that Pius IX. and 
 the whole Episcopate, and the Vatican Council, and the 
 Clergy of England and Ireland, so believe and teach, I 
 can hardly find fault with a plain man who says, 
 ' Your arguments and quotations are above me, but 
 I know that the Pope and the Church cannot mislead 
 me ; they must know the Catholic faith better than 
 you. At all costs I must believe them.' I could 
 not blame such a man in refusing for so obvious a 
 reason to listen to Mr. Gladstone when he expostu- 
 lates with the Vatican Council. Indeed, I can conceive 
 that it wUl not promote loyalty in England or 
 Ireland to. hold up passages from books written 
 even by me in proof that Catholics must choose 
 between their loyalty and their religion. They may 
 be more likely to choose to err even with me than to 
 correct their faith at the voice of any politician, More- 
 over, they may even be tempted to think that if I am 
 not loyal they need not be. It is a dangerous thing 
 to tell a flock of many millions that the Pastors they 
 trust are, or ought to be, disloyal. They will be apt 
 to say, ' We do not understand it ; but if it be true, 
 there must be some very strong and sufficient reason.' 
 I can conceive that the Catholic peasants in Germany 
 may have argued in this plain way, even before 
 
140 TEUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 they understood the merits of the cause. They 
 saw the Archbishop of Posen carried off to prison. 
 Depend upon it their confidence went with him. 
 This is playing with edged tools, and in a matter 
 where it is hardly moral to play at all. Great 
 public disasters might be caused by the game, and the 
 costs of the game would fall, not upon the gamester, 
 but upon innocent men, and women, and children. 
 
 I could not refrain from saying thus much of 
 England. But I have little fear that the stream of our 
 equal legislation will be turned aside, much less 
 turned back ; or that our public peace will be 
 broken. The destinies of the British Empire are in 
 strong hands, guided by calm heads, and supported 
 by a balanced and steady public opinion, which in the 
 last two months has manifested a self-command and 
 an equity which do honour to our country. 
 
 As to Germany I shall say no more. Luther's 
 mighty trumpet has already rung twice through Ger- 
 many. It rang long and loud from 1535 to 1542, and 
 again longer and louder from 1618 to 1648. The old 
 Germany that heard it has ceased to exist.^ God grant 
 that it may not give such notes again. Everyone who 
 bears a human heart, and a love for the Christian world 
 and a good-Avill to Germany, will share in this desire. 
 
 But if the conflicts of Governments against the 
 Church are fatal to the public peace and to them- 
 
 • See Archbishop Trench's Gustavus Adolphus, pp. 88, 89, 161. 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 141 
 
 selves, as assuredly they would be to the British 
 Empire if our accusers should rekindle old strifes, 
 and as they assuredly will be in the German Empire, 
 whether the policy of Prince Von Bismarck fail or 
 succeed, there can be found no sadder example of 
 this disastrous imprudence in statesmen than in the 
 case of Italy. For eight and twenty years a wanton and 
 mischievous aggression against the Holy See has been 
 carried on. I say wanton, because it has been with- 
 out a cause. I say mischievous, because it has 
 retarded and endangered the unity and independence 
 of Italy, and the public and private prosperity of the 
 Italian people. As Mr. Gladstone has reviewed his 
 relation to the Italian question in its bearing on his 
 Expostulation, I may do the same. 
 
 At the outset of their task of unifying and vindi- 
 cating the independence of Italy, the Italian politicians 
 began by assailing the principle of all unity among 
 men. They engaged all the pride and all the passion 
 of Italy in a deadly conflict with the special source 
 of all its greatness. Had they worked from that 
 centre of their moral life, -Italy at this day would 
 have been united, peaceful, and strong. These are, 
 indeed, my convictions, but not my woi'ds. Neither 
 the present party Avhich rules Italy, nor the party 
 which has encouraged them in this country, will, 
 perhaps, listen to me. But they will listen, I hope, 
 to one who was an Italian, and a lover of the unity 
 and independence of Italy. Vincenzo Gioberti, in 
 
142 TPtJE AND FALSE PliOGEESS. 
 
 his ' Primato degli ItaliaDi,' after proving that reli- 
 gion is the source of all civilisation, says : — 
 
 ' If, then, the whole culture of a people has its impulse 
 and origin from religion, how can we treat of its culture 
 without speaking of its religion ? If the culture of Europe 
 in general, and that of Italy in particular, were the work 
 of the New Eome and of its belief, how is it possible to dis- 
 cuss this twofold argument, and to be silent about Catholi- 
 cism and about the Pope ? In writing a book upon Italy I 
 protest that I desire to speak of the living and real Italy 
 as it exists at this day, not of the Italy that is dead these 
 fourteen hundred years, nor of an abstract allegorical 
 Italy that is not to be found in the outward world, but 
 only in the brain of some philosopher.' . . . ' Italy is dif- 
 ferenced from the Gentile nations by its Christianity ; from 
 those that are in heresy and schism by its Catholicism ; and 
 from the other nations which are Catholic by the fact that 
 it is placed in the centre of Catholicism, and not in the 
 outline or circumference.' . • . . ' But among the Catholic 
 populations, the Italian has the privilege of occupying the 
 first place, because it possesses in its heart the first See. 
 
 ' I hope that these suggestions will be enough to 
 justify the small amount of theology that I have put 
 into this book Two facts seem to me con- 
 spicuous in the political {civile) world at this day ' . . . 
 ' the first is the exclusion of the Theology of Eevelation 
 from the field of the Encyclopedia of human knowledge ; 
 the second is the removal of the Catholic clergy from the 
 influence in civil affairs.' . . . . ' I count it to be the 
 duty of a writer, above all if he be a philosopher, Catholic 
 and Italian, to combat these two grand aberrations of 
 modern civilisation, and to recall things to their first prin- 
 ciples ; endeavouring to restore the universal primacy of 
 religion in the circle of things and of knowledge.' .... 
 
TEUE AND FALSE PROGEESS. 143 
 
 ' I therefore do not believe that I deceive myself in affirm- 
 ing that every scientific reform is vain, if it do not make 
 chief account of religion, and that every scheme of Italian 
 renovation is null, if it have not for its base the comer- 
 stone of Catholicism.' * 
 
 After a contrast of the theoretical abstractions of 
 the Ghibelline party and the practical and popular 
 policy of the Guelphs, Gioberti continues: — 
 
 ' The Italy of that day was not the Italy of the ancient 
 Latins, corrupted by the incapacity of the later Emperors, 
 and destroyed by the ferocity of the northern barbarians. 
 In its stead a new Eome had been created, under the 
 auspices, not of Romulus, but of Peter, not of the Con- 
 script Fathers of old Eome, but of the Episcopate, and of 
 the councils which are the Patrician order and the Senate 
 of the universal Christendom. The Guelphs, therefore, 
 did not separate the civil constitution of Italy from the 
 Pontificate, and, without confounding the human order 
 with the divine, they believed that God, having privileged 
 the Peninsula with the first See of the faith, mother of all 
 others .... it ought to exercise the chief part in the 
 political order of Italy.' . . . ' But in this day many 
 think otherwise, and in their opinion the Pope has about 
 as much to do with the national condition of Italy as he 
 has with that of China. This comes from the weakness into 
 which foreign influences have led the Papacy, and from 
 the springing up again for the last century of the ancient 
 spirit of the Nominalists and the Ghibellines, under 
 the form of Gallicanism, Jansenism, Cartesianism, Vol- 
 tairianism, or under the disguise of rationalism and 
 German pantheism, prompted by the same principles, and 
 
 Gioberti, Primato degliltaliani, vol. ii. pp. 28-31. 
 
144 TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS, 
 
 springing from the same countries respectively as those 
 former heresies. And the evil vrill last as long as men 
 persist in substituting a heathen or chimerical Italy in the 
 place of a real and a Christian Italy, which God, and a 
 life of eighteen hundred years, has created ; that is to 
 say, a French or German Italy in the place of an Italy 
 of the Italians. But I cannot understand how men can 
 ascribe the civilisation of Europe in general to Christianity 
 (of which there is at this day no writer of any force who 
 doubts), and not award in particular the culture of our 
 Peninsula to the Holy See ; for the Pope is to the universal 
 Church that which the civilisation of Italy is to that of 
 Europe.' • 
 
 I will add but one more passage, which will 
 enunciate in the words of an Italian patriot the 
 affirmation I have made: — 
 
 ' The separating of the national personality of Italy 
 from its religious principle, and from the dignity which 
 spreads throughout it from the Christian monarchy of 
 which it is the home {residenza), is not, in my opinion, the 
 least of the causes which, for many centuries, weakens the 
 minds of Italians. This error sprung in part from the 
 habit of arguing and judging of Christian Italy after 
 the manner of pagans, and in part from the custom of 
 reasoning, according to the canons of a philosophy which 
 is governed, not by rational ideas nor by living and con- 
 crete facts, but by empty abstractions.' ^ 
 
 Such was the estimate of a man who loved Italy 
 with all his heart, and desired to see it united, and 
 independent of all foreign dynasties. 
 
 ' Gioberti, Primato degli Italiani, vol. ii. pp. 66, 67. ^ Ibid. 60. 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PKOGEESS. 145, 
 
 This is no mere speculation as to what the 
 Catholic rehgion and the Pope may be to Italy, but 
 a strict historical fact. The Pontiffs have been for 
 fourteen hundred years the chief popular power in 
 Italy. I say popular, not dynastic ; not despotic, but 
 Guelf. In the fifth century the Pontiffs saved Italy 
 from the Gothic invasions. St. Innocent I. saved 
 Ravenna and Rome. St. Leo saved Italy from Attila, 
 and Rome from Genseric. In the sixth and seventh 
 centuries St. Gregory was the chief defender of Italy 
 and Rome against the Lombards. The same is true in 
 the time of Gregory II. and Adrian I. In the ninth, 
 tenth, and eleventh centuries the Pontiffs Leo IV. 
 and Gregory IV. saved Italy from the Saracens. So 
 also John VIII., John X., Benedict VIII. beat back 
 the Saracens, and finally drove them from Sardinia. 
 The Crusades of Urban II. and St. Pius V. saved Italy 
 and Europe from the Mohammedan Power. In the 
 great contest about Investitures, the Pontiffs, from 
 Gregory VII. to Calistus II., saved the Church from 
 subjection to the Empire, and Italy from subjection to 
 Germany. The ecclesiastical and political liberties of 
 Italy were both at stake, and were both vindicated 
 together by the action of the Pontiffs. In the twelfth 
 and thirteenth centuries the liberty of the Italian Com- 
 munes was saved from the feudal despotism of the 
 Hohenstaufen by the Popes. Alexander III. and 
 the Lombard League defended popular liberty against 
 Frederick Barbarossa. The City of Alexandria is to 
 
146 TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 this day the monument of the gratitude of the Lom- 
 bard people. The City of Cajsarea has ceased to 
 exist. Innocent III. and the Tuscan League saved 
 the liberties of Central Italy. Gregory IX. and 
 Innocent IV. resisted the tyranny of Frederick II., 
 and finally saved the independence of Italy from the 
 Imperial despotism. Then came the contest of the 
 people and the Empire, the Guelfs and the Ghibel- 
 lines. In these conflicts the Popes and the people 
 were indivisible. In the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries the Popes were the soul and the strength 
 of the Italian Leagues, whereby the people and their 
 liberties were protected from the enormities of 
 tyrants and adventurers and Free Companies. lu 
 the fifteenth century Nicholas V. maintained peace 
 among the Princes and people of Italy, and drew 
 Naples, Milan, Florence, Venice, and Genoa into a 
 Confederation to maintain the Italian independence. 
 
 Pius II. protected, in like manner, the liberty of 
 Italy from the intrusions of France. Paul II. leagued 
 together all the Princes of Italy in defence of Italian 
 freedom. Julius 11. laboured to drive all foreign 
 domination out of Italy. Leo X. made it his chief 
 policy to liberate Italy fi-om all foreign dominion, and 
 to unite all the Princes of Italy in a Confederation of 
 independence. 
 
 Paul IV., though unsuccessful, was the champion 
 of the independence of Italy against the Spaniards. 
 From that time onwards the Pontiffs were ever in con- 
 
TRITE AND I'ALSE PROGRESS. 147 
 
 flict against Spain or France to save the liberties of 
 Italy and of the Church. The histories of Pius VI. 
 and Pius VII. are too well known to need recital. 
 
 It is therefore too late in the day to go about to 
 persuade men that the Pontiffs were ever opposed to 
 Italian unity, Italian freedom, Italian independence. 
 These three things have been the aim and the work 
 of the whole line of Popes, down to Pius IX. Even 
 Mr. Gladstone acknowledges that Pius IX. is ' an 
 Italian.' ^ Beyond all doubt there is not one in the 
 long line I have quoted who has loved Italy more 
 than he. There is not one who had at heart more 
 ardently the unity, freedom, and independence of 
 Italy. His first act was to set free every political 
 prisoner with a full pardon. By that act he showed 
 that he recognised the misdirected love of country 
 in those who had been seduced into false or unlawful 
 ways of seeking the unity and the liberties of their 
 country. 
 
 In 1847 Pius IX. invited all the Princes of Italy to 
 a League of Customs, by which the principle of Fede- 
 ral Unity would have been established. From this 
 germ the National Unity would have steadily grown 
 Tip, without shock or overthrow of right or justice. 
 Once confederated, there was no identity of interests, 
 no unity of power, which might not have grown solid 
 and mature. This and the Supreme Council for the 
 ■Government of the Pontifical State are proof enough 
 
 ' Expostulation, p. 49. 
 
148 TRUE AND TALSE PROGRESS, 
 
 of his desire for Italian unity, and of the far-reaching- 
 foresight with which he aimed at the elevation of 
 Italy, And as for Italian independence, let the 
 following letter, written by himself to the Emperor 
 of Austria on the 2nd of May, 1848, suffice : — 
 
 'Your Imperial Majesty, this Holy See has been 
 always wont to speak words of peace in the midst of the 
 wars that stain the Christian world with blood ; and in 
 our Allocution of the 29th of last month, while we declared 
 that our paternal heart shrunk from declaring war, we 
 expressly declared our ardent desire to restore peace. Let 
 it not be displeasing, therefore, to your Majesty that we 
 turn to your piety and religion, and exhort you with a 
 father's affection to withdraw your armies from a war 
 which, while it cannot reconquer to the Empire the hearts 
 of the Lombards and Venetians, draws after it the lament- 
 able series of calamities that ever accompany warfare, 
 and are assuredly abhorred and detested by you. Let it 
 not be displeasing to the generous German people, that we 
 invite them to lay aside all hatreds and to turn a domina- 
 tion which could not be either noble or happy while it 
 rests only on the sword, into the useful relations of friendly 
 neighbourhood. Thus we trust that the German nation, 
 honourably proud of its own nationality, will not engage 
 its honour in sanguinary attempts against the Italian 
 nation, but will place it rather in nobly acknowledging it 
 as a sister, as indeed both nations are our daughters, and 
 most dear to our heart ; thereby mutually withdrawing to 
 dwell each one in its natural boundaries with honourable 
 treaties and the benediction of the Lord. Meanwhile, 
 we pray to the Giver of all lights and the Author of all 
 good to inspire your Majesty with holy counsels, and give 
 from our inmost heart to you and Her Majesty the 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGEESS. 149 
 
 Empress, and to tlie Imperial family, the Apostolic bene- 
 diction. 
 
 ' Given in Rome at Santa Maria Maggiore, on the third 
 day of May, in the year 1848, the second of our Pontificate, 
 
 ' Pius PP. IX.' 
 
 The follomng passage, from an impartial observer, 
 will attest what were the intentions and desires of 
 Pius IX. :— 
 
 'The opposition of Austria has been constant and 
 intense from the moment of his election. The spectacle 
 of an Italian Prince, relying for the maintenance of his 
 power on the affectionate regard and the national sym- 
 pathies of his people ; the resolution of the Pope to pursue 
 a course of moderate reform, to encourage railroads, to 
 emancipate the press, to admit laymen to offices in the 
 State, and to purify the law ; but, above all, the dignified 
 independence of action manifested by the Court of Kome, 
 have filled the Austrians with exasperation and appre- 
 hension. There is not the least doubt that the Cabinet 
 •of Vienna is eager to grasp at the slightest pretext for an 
 armed intervention south of the Po. If such a pretext do 
 not occur, it is but too probable that it may be created ; 
 and any disturbances calculated to lead to such a result 
 would at once betray their insidious origin. Meanwhile, 
 the Pope is menaced in Austrian notes, which have some- 
 times transgressed the limits of policy and decorum ; and 
 the minor Princes of Italy are terrified by extravagant 
 intimations of hostile designs entertained against them 
 by the National Party, headed by the Pope and the House 
 of Savoy, in order to persuade them that their only safe- 
 guard is the Austrian army. These intrigues may be 
 thought necessaiy to the defence of the tottering power 
 of Austria south of the Alps, for every, step made in 
 
150 TRUE AlfD FALSE PEOGKESS. 
 
 advance by Italy is a step towards the emancipation of tli& 
 country.' ^ 
 
 But the evil genius of revolution had begun to 
 work. Across the field of the Christian and Catholic 
 traditions of Italy, a chimerical theory of a Com- 
 munistic State, a Repiiblic without Christianity, a 
 democracy without King or Pontiff, forced itself. 
 
 Mazzini had been crying for years, ' The Papacy 
 is extinct, Catholicism is a corpse, and the Pope 
 
 knows this Read the Encyclical Letter.' ^ He 
 
 had taught Toung Italy the three degrees, of Guerilla 
 Bands, Insurrection, Revolution.^ The mine was 
 charged and the fuse already lighted. This wide- 
 spread Secret Association covered the face of Italy. 
 What followed all men know : the murder of Rossi,, 
 the siege of the Quirinal Palace, the wreck of all 
 avithority, the Socialist Revolution, the Roman Re- 
 public, impunity of sacrilege, and a reign of terror. 
 
 Now, let us suppose that in the period of our 
 history, when the unity of the English people was grad- 
 ually consolidating, some organised Apostleship of 
 Socialism had begun to whisper in private and to preach 
 in public such doctrines of conspiracy as these, and to 
 teach that the people could never be free so long as. 
 King or Priest existed ; that all monarchical power 
 
 1 Times, Marcli 28, 1847. 
 
 '■' Life and Writings of Mazzini, vol. i. p. 248. 
 
 •* Ibid. p. 108, and Appendix, 18G4. 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 151 
 
 and ecclesiastical authority were enemies of the 
 public weal; that the overthrow of the Monarchy 
 and the extinction of the Church were the only 
 remedies of present evils, the only means of future 
 progress. Such a foreign element of discord, mis- 
 trust, conspiracy would have divided the hearts, 
 intellects, and wills of the people of England, and 
 rendered its unification impossible. The unity of 
 religion in faith and worship, the unity of the 
 Spiritual authority which spoke to the reason and 
 the will of men, was then, as it is at this hour, the only 
 principle of unity. Without this, legislation is merely 
 mechanical ; a dynamic power is wanted to bind men 
 into one people. Our forefathers had it, and the 
 English Monarchy of a thousand years is its fruit. 
 The Italians have it at this hour in great vividness j 
 but Philosophers and Doctrinaires, Conspirators and 
 Communists, are perverting the intellect and dividing 
 the wills of the rising men of Italy. If such a con- 
 spiracy had crossed our early unification, we should 
 have been, it may be, at this day, I will not say a 
 Heptarchy, but assuredly a divided people, with a 
 paralyzed national will. May God save Italy from 
 this danger. It is not too late. It was said in an 
 eloquent speech, the other day, that a people which 
 breaks with its past is doomed to division and to 
 instability. The rupture of France with its ancient 
 traditions in 1789 has generated the brood of poli- 
 tical parties, which, from month to month, thwart 
 
152 TRUE ANB FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 and defeat each other's action, like palsied limbs. 
 If Italy should break with its past ; if it should 
 forget the labours, and. sufferings, and dangers which 
 united its Pontiffs and its people in the wars of its 
 independence, freedom, and unity ; if it should forget 
 the confederationg wrought by the Pontiffs, by which 
 they made all the divisions of Italy work together 
 for the liberties of the whole Peninsula, from the 
 Alps to its foot — ^then, indeed, I should despair of its 
 future. It could have no other in store than a 
 chronic warfare of parties, and the final sway of 
 some successful soldier. 
 
 Of the population of 26,000,000 Italians not three 
 millions have launched themselves in the revolution 
 of the last twenty years. The great bulk of the 
 people are, as they have always been. Christian, 
 Catholic, and loyal. The Electoral body who have 
 votes. to return the Italian Parliament do not exceed 
 in number some half million. Of these hardly one- 
 half record their vote. The Italian Deputies are, 
 therefore, chosen by one-hundreth part of the popu- 
 lation. The whole Chamber is, therefore, revolu- 
 tionary, and may be divided into two parties — ^the 
 moderate revolution and the extreme, revolution. 
 The Catholic voters abstain from all participation hi 
 such a state. They are not revolutionists, either ex- 
 treme or moderate. They could elect no deputy but 
 one of their own principles ; and no such deputy 
 could sit, because to take his place he must bind 
 
TRUE AND FALSE PROGRESS. 153 
 
 himself by oath to the existing state of things, 
 including, therefore, the violation of the sovereignty 
 of the Pontiff. More than this, the existing state of 
 the law has invaded the liberties and jurisdiction of 
 the Church. It has abolished religious orders and 
 institutions, it has harshly turned out their inmates 
 upon a pittance, which, if paid, would not suffice for 
 food. It has confiscated property, seized upon col- 
 leges, abolished theology from the universities, and 
 the Christian doctrine from schools. And all this, be 
 it remembered, not to meet the distracted state of a 
 people who have lost their religious unity, and must 
 be provided with civil marriage and secular educa- 
 tion, but m the midst of a population absolutely 
 and universally Catholic. This, and not what Mr. 
 Gladstone, with a stratige want of accuracy, supposes, 
 is what the Syllabus condemns. It nowhere con- 
 demns the civil policy which is necessary for a people 
 hopelessly divided in religion. For us this may be a 
 necessity. In Italy it is a doctrine of the Doctrinaires. 
 To force upon the united people of Italy that which 
 is necessary for the divided people of England is a 
 senseless legislation, and a mischievous breaking with 
 the glorious past of Italy. I do not now stay to dwell 
 upon the unpatriotic and un-Italian agitation of men 
 who for twenty-five years have threatened Pius IX. 
 with violence, and assailed him as the Vampire, the 
 Canker, the Gangrene of Italy. Such men, from 
 Aspromonte to this day, have been the chief hindrance 
 
154 TRUE AXD FALSE PROGRESS. 
 
 to the unification and pacification of Italy. And 
 those who in this country have encouraged and 
 abetted those agitators — not that they knew any- 
 thing but that Garibaldi was fighting against the 
 Pope — have been among the worst friends of Italy; 
 I might say among the unconscious but most mis- 
 chievous enemies. It is strange how this one taint 
 of bigotry will pervert everything. Garibaldi was 
 raising insurrection in Sicily and Naples against a 
 lawful sovereign ; and those who put us now to 
 question about our loyalty cheered and aided him by 
 all moral influence. More than this, when the leader 
 of rebellion came to England he was received 
 with royal honours, and red carpets were spread for 
 him at the threshold of aristocratic houses, until hia 
 name was found to be contagious. Then, ia twenty- 
 four hours he was sped Jfrom England with the 
 profuse facilities of departure which wait upon an 
 unwelcome guest. In my judgment — and I have 
 formed it not in London from newspaper corre- 
 spondents, but in Eome during many a long residence, 
 extending in all over seven years — ^those who 
 have encouraged this chronic agitation against the 
 religion of Italians and the independence of Rome, 
 have been among the chief causes of the present dis- 
 orders of Italy. They could put no surer bar to its 
 unity or to the solution of the Roman question which 
 they confidently believe to be settled. They are 
 keeping it open by encouraging the Government of 
 
TKUE AND FALSE PEOGEESS. 155 
 
 the day to persist in quan-eling with the Cathohc 
 Church and with its Head. But this part of the sub- 
 ject has outgroT\'^n its proportion. I return, therefore, 
 to the proposition I set out to prove, — that by the 
 collisions which now exist between the Civil Powers- 
 and the Church, the Governments of Europe are 
 destroying the main principle of their own stability. 
 And I must add that they who are rekindling the old 
 fires of religious discord in such an equal and tem- 
 pered Commonwealth as ours, seem to me to be 
 serving neither Grod nor their country. 
 
156 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 My last proposition is that the motive of the Council 
 of the Vatican for defining the Infallibility of the 
 E,oman Pontiff was not any temporal motive, nor was 
 it for temporal ends ; but that the Definition was 
 made in the face of all temporal dangers, in order to 
 ^uard the Divine deposit of Christianity, and to vin- 
 dicate the Divine certainty of Faith. 
 
 I have read many things in Mr. Gladstone's 
 pamphlet which are unlike himself, but none seems 
 more so to me than this question, 'Why did that 
 Court, with policy for ever in its eye, lodge such 
 formidable demands for power of the vulgar kind in 
 that sphere which is visible, and where hard knocks 
 <;an undoubtedly be given as well as received?' ^ 
 
 Would it not have been more seemly and more 
 dignified if the question had been couched in some 
 such words as these : ' Why has the Catholic Church, 
 in a moment of great peril, when a revolution is at 
 the gates of Rome, and the Civil Powers of the world 
 -are uniting, not only to forsake it, but even to 
 
 ' Expostulation, p. 47. 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 157" 
 
 threaten it witli opposition — why has it at such a^ 
 time, in spite of every inducement of policy, and every 
 motive of interest, and in defiance of every pleading 
 of worldly wisdom, persisted in defining the Infalli* 
 bility of the Pope — a doctrine which is sure to bring 
 down upon the Church the animosities of all it» 
 enemies without, and the conspiracies of all its faith- 
 less members withiu ? ' Even Mr. Gladstone can see 
 that this, was most impolitic. Why, then, will he accuse- 
 the Church of always having policy in its eye ? By 
 his own confession it is not always so : for he is witness, 
 that it is not so in this case. Why, then, would he 
 not say so? I will gladly answer the question he has- 
 put. 
 
 The reasons, then, why the Infallibility of the' 
 Eoman Pontiff ought to be defined were publicly 
 stated as follows, in 1869, before the Vatican Council 
 met ; and some or all of them, I believe, prevailed io 
 determining the Council to make that definition : — 
 
 ' Those who maintain that the time is ripe, and 
 that such a definition would be opportune, justify 
 their opinion on the following reasons: — 
 
 ' 1. Because the doctrine of the Infallibility of the 
 Yicar of Jesus Christ, speaking ex cathedra, in matter 
 of faith and morals, is true. 
 
 ' 2. Because this truth has been denied. 
 
 ' 3. Because this denial has generated extensive 
 doubt as to the truth of this doctrine, which lies at 
 the root of the immemorial and universal practice of 
 
158 MOTIVE or THE DEFINITION. 
 
 the Chui'cli, and therefore at the foundation of 
 Christianity in the world. 
 
 ' 4. Because this denial, if it arose informally about 
 the time of the Council of Constance, has been 
 revived, and has grown into a formal and public 
 error since the closing of the last General Council. 
 
 ' 5. Because, if the next General Council shdl 
 pass it over, the error will henceforward appear to be 
 tolerated, or at least left in impunity; and the 
 Pontifical censures of Innocent XI., Alexander VIII., 
 Innocent XII., and Pius VI. will appear to be of 
 doubtful effect. 
 
 ' 6. Because this denial of the traditional belief of 
 the Church is not a private, literary, and scholastic 
 opinion ; but a patent, active, and organised opposition 
 to the prerogatives of the Holy See. 
 
 '7. Because this erroneous opinion has gravely 
 enfeebled the doctrinal authority of the Church in the 
 minds of a certain number of the faithful ; and if 
 passed over in impunity, this ill effect will be still 
 further encouraged. 
 
 ' 8. Because this erroneous opinion has at times 
 caused and kept open a theological and practical 
 division among pastors and people ; and has given 
 occasion to" domestic criticisms, mistrusts, animosities, 
 and alienations. 
 
 ' 9. Because these divisions tend to paralyse the 
 action of truth upon the minds of the faithful ad 
 intra; and, consequently, by giving a false appearance 
 
MOTIVE OP THE DEFINITION. 159 
 
 of division and doubt among Catholics, upon the 
 minds of Protestants and others ad extra. 
 
 ' 10. Because, as the absence of a definition gives 
 occasion for these separations and oppositions of 
 opinion among pastors and people, so, if defined, the 
 doctrine would become a basis and a bond of unity 
 among the faithful. 
 
 '11. Because, if defined in an CEcumenical Council, 
 the doctrine would be at once received throughout 
 the world, both by those who believe the Infallibility 
 of the Pontiff and by those who believe the Infalli- 
 bility of the Church, and with the same universal 
 joy and unanimity as the definition of the Immaculate 
 Conception. 
 
 '12. Because the definition of the ordinary means 
 whereby the faith is proposed to the world is required 
 to complete the treatise " De Fide Diviua." 
 
 '13. Because the same definition is required to 
 complete the treatise " De Ecclesia, deque Dotibus 
 ejus." 
 
 ' 14. Because it is needed to place the Pontifical 
 Acts during the last three hundred years, both in 
 declaring the truth, as in the dogma of the Immacu- 
 late Conception, and in condemning errors, as in the 
 long series of propositions condemned in Baius, 
 Jansenius, and others, beyond cavil or question ; 
 and still more, to make manifest that the active 
 Infallibility of the Church, between council and 
 council, is. not dormant, suspended, or intermittent ; 
 
160 MOTIVE OP THE DEFINITION. 
 
 and to exclude the heretical supposition that infallible 
 decrees are left to the exposition and interpretation of 
 a fallible judge. 
 
 '15. Because the fuU and final declaration of the 
 divine authority of the Head of the Church is needed 
 to exclude from the minds of pastors and faithful the 
 political influences which have generated Gallicanisin, 
 Imperialism, Regalism, and Nationalism, the perennial 
 sources of error, contention, and schism. 
 
 ' For these, and for many more reasons which it is 
 impossible now to detail, many believe that a defini- 
 tion or declaration which would terminate this long 
 and pernicious question, would be opportune ; and that 
 it might for ever be set at rest by the condemnation 
 of the propositions following : — 
 
 ' 1. That the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs in 
 matter of faith and morals do not oblige the con- 
 science unless they be made in a General Council, or 
 before they obtain at least the tacit consent of the 
 Church. 
 
 ' 2. That the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks in 
 matter of faith and morals, as the universal Doctor 
 and Teacher of the Church, may err.' ^ 
 
 I will now, as briefly as I can, state what the Defi- 
 nition is. The greater part of the excitement and 
 alarm on this subject arises from a want of just and 
 clear perception of what the doctrine of Infallibility 
 signifies. 
 
 1 Petri Privilegium, part ii. pp. 119-122. (Longmans, 1869.) 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 161 
 
 ' The fourth and last chapter of the " Constitution 
 on the Church" defines the infallible doctrinal authority 
 of the Roman Pontiff as the supreme teacher of all 
 Christians. 
 
 ' The chapter opens by affirming that to this su- 
 preme jurisdiction is attached a proportionate grace, 
 whereby its exercise is directed and sustained. 
 
 ' This truth has been traditionally held and taught 
 by the Holy See, by the praxis of the Church, and 
 by the (Ecumenical Councils, especially those in 
 which the East and the West met in union together; 
 as, for instance, the fourth of Constantinople, the 
 second of Lyons, and the Council of Florence. 
 
 ' It is then declared that, in virtue of the promise 
 of our Lord, " I have prayed for thee, that thy faith 
 fail not," ' a perpetual grace of stability in faith was 
 Divinely attached to Peter and to his successors in 
 his See. 
 
 ' The definition then affirm.s " that the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — ^that is, when in dis- 
 charge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Chris- 
 tians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, 
 he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be 
 held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assist- 
 ance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed 
 of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer 
 willed that His Church should be endowed for defin- 
 
 » St. Ltike xxii. 31, 32. 
 M 
 
162 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITIOK". 
 
 ing doctrine regarding faith, and morals; and that, 
 therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are 
 irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent 
 of the Church, 
 
 ' In this definition there are six points to be noted : 
 
 ' First, it defines the meaning of the well-known 
 phrase, loquens ex cathedra-, that is, speaking from the 
 seat, or place, or with the authority of, the supreme 
 teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of 
 the Universal Church, 
 
 ' Secondly, the subject-matter of his infallible 
 teaching; namely, the doctrine of faith and morals. 
 
 ' Thirdly, the efficient cause of Infallibility; that is, 
 -the Divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter 
 to his successors. 
 
 ' Fourthly, the act to which this Divine assistance 
 is attached; namely, the defining of doctrines of faith 
 and morals. 
 
 ' Fifthly, the extension of this infallible authority 
 to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church. 
 
 ' Lastly, the dogmatic value of the definitions ex 
 cathedra; namely, that they are in themselves irre- 
 formable, because in themselves infallible, and not 
 because the Church, or any part or member of the 
 Chmxh, should assent to them. 
 
 ' These six points contain the whole definition of 
 InfaUibility. 
 
 ' I. First, the definition limits the Infallibility of 
 the Pontiff to the acts which emanate fi-om him ex 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DELTNITION. 163 
 
 'Cathedra, This plirase, whicli lias been long and 
 commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first 
 time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church, 
 ^nd in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its 
 meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and 
 •only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all 
 •Christians, By this all acts of the Pontiff as a private 
 person, or a private doctor, or as a local bishop, or 
 ■as sovereign of a State, are excluded.^ In all 
 these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In 
 one and one only capacity he is exempt from error ; 
 that is, when, as teacher of the whole Church, he 
 teaches the whole Church in things of faith and 
 morals. 
 
 ' Our Lord declared " Super Cathedram Moysi 
 sederunt Scrib£e et Pharissei — the Scribes and Pha- 
 risees have sat in the chair of Moses." The seat or 
 -cathedra of Moses signifies the authority and the doc- 
 trine of Moses : the cathedra Petri is in like manner 
 the authority and doctrine of Peter. The former was 
 
 ' Cardinal Sfondrati, writing in 1684, explained this truth as fol- 
 lows : — ' The Pontiff does some thing s as man, some as prince, some as 
 •doctor, some as pope ; that is, as head and foundation of the Church ; 
 ■and it is only to these (last-named) actions that we attribute the gilt 
 of Iniallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As, 
 then, not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of 
 the Pope enjoys the papal privilege. This, therefore, is to act as 
 Pontiff, and to speak ex cathedra, which is not within the com- 
 petency of any (other) doctor or bishop.' — Regale Sacerdotium, 
 lib. iii. sec. 1. 
 
1G4 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 binding by Divine command, and under pain of sin,, 
 upon the people of God under the Old Law ; the latter 
 is binding by Divine command, and under pain of 
 sin, upon the people of God under the New. 
 
 ' I need not here draw out the traditional use of 
 the term cathedra Petri^ which in St. Cyprian, St. Op- 
 tatus, and St. Augustine, is employed as synonymous 
 with the successor of Peter, and is used to express 
 the centre and test of Catholic unity. Ex cathedra 
 is therefore equivalent to ex cathedra Petri^ and dis- 
 tinguishes those acts of the successors of Peter which 
 are done as supreme teacher of the whole Church. 
 
 ' The value of this phrase is great, inasmuch as it 
 excludes aU. cavil and equivocation as to the acts of 
 the Pontiff in any other capacity than that of supreme 
 Doctor of all Christians, and in any other subject- 
 matter than the matters of faith and morals. 
 
 ' II. Secondly, the definition limits the range, or, 
 to speak exactly, the object of Infallibility, to the 
 doctrine of faith and morals. It excludes, therefore, 
 all other matter whatsoever. 
 
 ' The great commission or charter of the Church 
 is, in the words of our Lord, " Go ye therefore and 
 teach aU nations .... teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and be- 
 hold I am with you all days, even to the consumma- 
 tion of the world." ^ 
 
 ' St. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
MOTIVE or THE DEFINITION. 165 
 
 ' In these words are contained five points: 
 
 ' First, the perpetuity and universality of the 
 mission of the Church as the teacher of mankind. 
 
 ' Secondly, the deposit of the Truth and of the 
 <!!ommandments, that is, of the Divine Faith and Law 
 •entrusted to the Church. 
 
 ' Thirdly, the office of the Church, as the sole in- 
 terpreter of the Faith and of the Law. 
 
 ' Fourthly, that it has the sole Divine jurisdiction 
 existing upon earth, in matters of salvation, over the 
 reason and the will of man. 
 
 ' Fifthly, that, in the discharge of this office, our 
 Lord is with His Church always, and to the consum- 
 mation of the world. 
 
 ' The doctrine of faith and the doctrine of morals 
 are here explicitly described. The Church is infalli- 
 ble in this deposit of revelation. 
 
 ' And in this deposit are truths and morals both of 
 the natural and of the supernatural order ; for the 
 religious truths and morals of the natural order are 
 taken up into the revelation of the order of grace, and 
 form a part of the object of Infalhbility. 
 
 ' The phrase, then, " faith and morals " signifies the 
 whole revelation of faith ; the whole way of salvation 
 through faith ; or the whole supernatural order, with 
 ^11 that is essential to the sanctification and salvation 
 of man through Jesus Christ. 
 
 ' This formula is variously expressed by the Church, 
 and by theologians ; but it always means one and the 
 ^same thing. 
 
166 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 ' The Fourteenth CEcumenical Council of Lyons m 
 1274 says, "If any questions arise concerning faith,, 
 they ai'e to be decided by the Roman PontiflF."^ 
 
 ' The Council of Trent uses the formula " In things 
 of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of ' 
 Christian doctrine."^ 
 
 ' The object of Infallibility, therefore, is the whole 
 revealed Word of God ; and all that is so in contact 
 with revealed truth, that without treating of it the- 
 Word of God could not be guarded, expounded, and 
 defended. As, for instance, in declaring the Canon, 
 and authenticity, and true interpretation of Holy 
 Scripture, and the like. 
 
 ' Further, it is clear that the Church has an infal- 
 lible guidance, not only in all matters that are 
 revealed, but also in all matters which are opposed 
 to revelation. For the Church could not discharge 
 its office as the Teacher of all nations, unless it were 
 able with infallible certainty to proscribe doctrines at 
 variance with the Word of God. 
 
 ' From this, again, it follows that the direct object 
 of Infallibility is the Revelation, or Word, of God ; 
 the indirect object is whatsoever is necessary for its 
 exposition or defence, and whatsoever is contrariant 
 
 ' ' Si qass subortaj fuerint qusestiones de fide, suo (i.e. Eom. 
 Pont.) debent judicio definiri.' — Labbe, Condi, torn. xiv. p. 512, 
 Venice, 1731. 
 
 ^ ' In rebus fidei et morum ad tedificationem doctrinaj Chi-istianse- 
 pertinentium.' — Sess. iv. Becret. de Edit, et Usu Sac. Lib. 
 
MOTIVE OP THE DEFINITION. 167 
 
 to the Word of God, that is, to faith and morals. 
 The Church, having a Divine office to condemn errors 
 in faith and morals, has therefore an infallible assist- 
 ance in discerning and in proscribing false philoso- 
 phies and false science.^ ...... 
 
 ' I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject- 
 matters which fall within the limits of the Infalhbility 
 of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to 
 determine the Hmits of its own Infallibility, Hitherto 
 it has not done so except by its acts, and from the 
 practice of the Church we may infer to what matter 
 its infallible discernment extends. It is enough for 
 the present to show two things : — 
 
 ' Firstly, that the Infallibility of the Church 
 extends, as we have seen, directly to the whole 
 matter of revealed truth, and indirectly to all truths 
 which, though not revealed, are in such contact with 
 revelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot 
 be guarded, expounded, and defended without an 
 infallible discernment of such unrevealed truths. 
 
 ' Secondly, that this extension of the Infallibility 
 of the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all 
 theologians, at least theologically certain ; and, in the 
 
 ' ' Further, the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office 
 of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives 
 from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest 
 any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (Coloss. ii. 
 8).' — Constitution on, the Catholic Faith, chap, iv. ' Of Faith and 
 Eeason.' 
 
168 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 judgment of the majority of theologians, certain by 
 the certainty of faith. 
 
 ' Such is the traditional doctrine respecting the 
 Infallibility of the Church in faith and morals. By 
 the definition of the Yatican CouncU, what is tradi- 
 tionally believed by all the faithful in respect to the 
 Church is expressly declared of the Roman Pontiff. 
 But the definition of the extent of that Infallibility, 
 and of the certainty on which it rests, in matters not 
 revealed, has not been treated as yet, but is left for 
 the second part of the Schema de Ecclesia. 
 
 ' Again, the definition declares the efficient cause 
 of Infallibility to be a Divine assistance promised to 
 Peter, and in Peter to his successors. 
 
 ' The explicit promise is that of our Divine Lord 
 to Peter, " I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
 fail not ; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy 
 brethren." ^ 
 
 ' The implicit promise is in the words, " On this 
 rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell 
 shall not prevail against it."^ 
 
 ' The Divine assistance is therefore a charisma, a 
 grace of the supernatural order, attached to the 
 Primacy of Peter, which is perpetual in his suc- 
 cessors. 
 
 ' I need hardly point out that between the charisma, 
 or gratia gratis data, of Infallibility and the idea of 
 
 ' St. Luke xxii. 32. « St. Matt. xvi. 18. 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 169 
 
 impeccability there is no connection. I should not 
 so much as notice it, if some had not strangely 
 obscured the subject by introducing this confusion. 
 I should have thought that the gift of prophecy in 
 Balaam and Caiaphas, to say nothing of the powers 
 of the priesthood, which are the same in good and 
 bad alilce, would have been enough to make such 
 confusion impossible. 
 
 ' The preface to the Definition carefully lays down 
 that Infallibility is not iaspiration. 
 
 ' The Divine assistance by which the Pontiffs are 
 guarded from error, when as Pontiffs they teach in 
 matters of faith and morals, contains no new revela- 
 tion. Inspiration contained, not only assistance in 
 writing, but sometimes the suggestion of truths not 
 otherwise known. The Pontiffs are witnesses, 
 teachers, and judges of the revelation already given 
 to the Church ; and in guarding, expounding, and 
 defending that revelation, their witness, teaching, 
 and judgment are by Divine assistance preserved from 
 error.' ^ 
 
 I will now answer Mr. Gladstone's question — why 
 the Definition was made. The Vatican Council, then, 
 defined the Infallibility of the Head of the Church, 
 because, if it had failed to do so, the doctrinal authority 
 of the Church would have been weakened throughout 
 
 ' Petri Privilegium, part iii. pp. 56-60, 66, 78, 84. (Lone 
 mans, 1870.) 
 
170 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 the •world. Every motive of worldly policy would 
 have tempted the Council to compromise, and to 
 shrink from defining it; but the peremptory obli- 
 gations of Divine Truth compelled it in defiance 
 of all policy to define it. Necessity was laid upon 
 the Council, and it could not recede. Universal 
 doubt and scepticism are pervading men and nations: 
 therefore the Church defined the Infallibility of its 
 'Head, which is the confirmation of its own As a 
 Divine witness, it declared his commission, and the 
 powers given for its exercise. The Vicar of Jesus 
 Christ testified to the world, wearied with doubt and 
 sick with religious contentions, that the promise of 
 his Master, ' He that heareth you heareth Me,' has 
 not failed. The definition of the Infallible teaching 
 of the Church by its Head affirms that there is still a 
 divine certainty of faith upon earth; and that, as 
 God is the sole Fountain of all Truth, so the Church 
 is the only channel of its conveyance and custody 
 among men. No other policy prompted the Definition. 
 And even though the combined hostility of Civil 
 Powers, as we now see it, had been heated sevenfold 
 hot before its eyes, the Council would not have 
 swerved from declaring, whether politic or not, the 
 truth delivered . to its charge. If I speak without 
 hesitation, it is because I am able to speak of that 
 which I saw with my own eyes, and heard with my 
 own ears. 
 
 I hope I shall not violate any confidence which 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITIOK. 171 
 
 ought to be sacred, or any reserve the delicacy 
 of which. I fully recognise, in going on to state a fact 
 of which I am able to give personal testimony. 
 
 One day, during the deliberations of the Council, 
 when the pressure of Diplomatists, and Governments, 
 and journals was at its highest, the Holy Father said, 
 ' I have just been warned that if the Council shall 
 l^ersist in making this definition, the protection of the 
 French army will be withdrawn.' After a pause he 
 added, with great calmness, ' As if the unworthy 
 Vicar of Jesus Christ could be swayed by such 
 motives as these.' I can with perfect certainty affirm 
 that ' policy' had as little influence on the Council 
 of the Vatican as it had on the Council of Nicasa ; and 
 that to ascribe the Definition to policy is as strange an 
 aberration of judgment as to ascribe to the Definition 
 the occupation of Rome, or the Franco-German war 
 to the Jesuits and to the Pope. When men say these 
 things, can they believe them? 
 
 It needs but little of the historic spirit to perceive 
 that if the Vatican Council, for such motives as these, 
 ought to have abstained from defining the Infalli- 
 bility of the Head of the Christian Church, the 
 Council of Nicaja ought also to have abstained from 
 defining the Hombousion. There was violence all 
 I'ound about it. There was the certainty of a schism. 
 After the Council eighty Bishops apostatised. They 
 appealed, as all heretics ever do, to the Civil Powers. 
 The Arian Schism was formed ; it vras protected by 
 
172 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 Emperor after. Emperor. Arianism became a State 
 tool against the Catholic Church. It infected Con- 
 stantinople ; it spread into Italy and Spain ; it lasted 
 for centuries. But where is it now? And where 
 now is the Creed of Nicaaa ? The Hombousion is at 
 this day in the heart of the whole Church through- 
 out the world. So will it be with the Council of the 
 Vatican. What the Council of Florence implicitly 
 declared, and the Council of Trent assumed as of 
 faith, that the Council of the Vatican explicitly 
 defined. It is very true that since the CouncU of 
 Constance, that is, since the great schism of the West, 
 when the Civil Powers of Europe, for a time, shook 
 the visible unity of the Church by endeavouring to 
 lessen the authority of its Head, the power of the 
 Eoman Pontiff has steadily consolidated itself in the 
 intellect and the will of the Church. What was 
 believed from the beginning has been now forced 
 into explicit declaration. But while the Church has 
 thus been more and more defining its faith with 
 ■&. Divine precision, the world has wandered off farther 
 and farther into the wilderness of unbelief. The 
 Council of Trent defined the particular doctrines 
 denied by Luther's Reformation. But it did not 
 deal with the master principle on which it rested. 
 The chief character of the sixteenth century was the 
 denial of the Divine authority of the Church, secured 
 to it in virtue of a perpetual assistance of the Spirit 
 of Truth. Three hundred years have unfolded the 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 173^ 
 
 consequences of this denial. It is nearly complete in 
 the rationalism and infidelity of Germany. The 
 ' Centuria praerogativa ' has a mournful privilege of 
 precedence in the Comitia of unbelievers. It has 
 run its course, too, in Switzerland ; and I must add, 
 with sadness, it is running its course in the wide- 
 spread doubt which is undermining the Christianity 
 of England. Day after day I hear the Avords, ' I 
 wish I knew what to believe, and why to believe 
 anything : ' and this from some of the noblest and 
 most masculine natures, who recoil from the incoher- 
 ence and contradiction of teachers who gainsay one 
 another. But here is a subject on which I have no 
 desu'e to enter. If I were asked to say what is the 
 chief intellectual malady of England and' of the 
 world at this day, I should say, ubiquitous, universal 
 doubt, an uncertainty which came in like a flood 
 after the rejection of the Divine certainty of Faith. 
 This uncertainty has already led multitudes to an 
 entire rejection of Christianity; and they have not 
 rested even in Deism. They have gone on to the 
 rejection even of natural religion. They have no 
 certainty that they have a conscience, or a will, or a 
 soul, or a law of morality, or that there is a God. 
 Three hundred years hence, when men look back 
 upon the Council of the Vatican, as they now look 
 back upon the Council of Trent — I will say even 
 thirty years hence, when the noise and dust of the 
 present conflict is laid, — they who have faith left in 
 
174 MOTIVE OF THE DEFINITION. 
 
 them will recognise the Divine guidance under which 
 the Council of the Vatican declared the existence of 
 God, with all the truths radiating from it, as resting 
 upon the witness of the visible world ; and also the 
 Divine certainty of the Faith, as resting upon the 
 witness of the Visible Church, and finding its per- 
 petual and infallible expression in the voice of its 
 Visible Head, 
 
 But it is now more than time to sura up what I 
 hope has been sufficiently proved. 
 
 My first answer to the charge that the Vatican 
 ■Council has made it impossible for Catholics to render 
 a loyal civil allegiance, is that the Vatican Council 
 has not touched our civil allegiance at all; that the 
 laws which govern our civil allegiance are as old as 
 the revelation of Christianity, and are regulated by 
 . the Divine constitution of the Church and the im- 
 mutable duties of natural morality. We were bound 
 by all these obligations before the Vatican Council 
 ■existed. They are of Divine institution, and are beyond 
 all change, being in themselves unchangeable. I have 
 shown, I hope, that in the conflicts of the Civil 
 Powers with the Church, the causes have arisen, not 
 from acts of the Church, but from such acts as the 
 CJonstitutions of Clarendon, the claim of Investitures, 
 the creation of Royal Courts of final appeal, and the 
 like ; that these invasions of the Spiritual domain ever 
 have been from the attempts of Governments to sub- 
 ject the Church to their own jurisdiction ; and now 
 
MOTIVE OF THE DEFimTION. 175 
 
 Tnore than ever, from an universal and simultaneous 
 ■conspiracy against it. A leader of this conspiracy- 
 said the other day, ' The net is now drawn so close 
 about the Church of Rom^ that if it escape this time 
 I will believe it to be Divine.' If God grant him life, 
 I have hope of his conversion. For, that the Church 
 of Rome will escape out of the net is certain, 
 and that for two reasons : first, for the same reason 
 why its Divine Head rose again from the grave — ' it 
 was not possible that He should be holden by it ;'^ and 
 next, because the Civil Governments, that are now 
 conspiring against it, are preparing for their own dis- 
 solution. Finally, I have given the true and evident 
 reason why, when some six hundred Bishops from 
 "the ends of the Church were gathered together, they 
 defined the Infallibility of their Head — 'Visum est 
 JSpiritui Sancto et nobis.' 
 
 ' Acts ii. 24. 
 
176 CONCLXJSIOK. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 And now there only remains for me the hardest and 
 saddest part of the task, which has not been sought 
 by me, but has been forced upon me. A few months 
 ago I could not have believed that I should have ever 
 written these pages. I have never written any with 
 more pain, and none of them have cost me so much 
 as that which I am about to write. 
 
 Thus far I have endeavoured to confine myself to 
 the subject-matter of Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet ; but 
 before I end, I feel bound by an imperative duty to 
 lay before him, in behalf of his Catholic feUow-coun- 
 trymen, the nature of the act which he has done. 
 
 He has not only invited, but instigated Cathohcs 
 to rise against the Divine authority of the Catholic 
 Church. He has endeavoured to create divisions 
 among them. If Mr. Gladstone does not believe 
 the authority of the Catholic Church to be Divine, 
 he knows that they do. 
 
 If he thinks such a rising to be ' moral and mental 
 freedom,' he knows that they believe it to be what his 
 own Litany calls ' schism, heresy, and deadly sin.' If 
 he believes religious separations to be lawful, he knows 
 that they believe them to be violations of the Divine 
 
CONCLUSION. 177 
 
 law. I am compelled therefore to say that this is at 
 least an act of signal rashness. 
 
 No man has watched Mr. Gladstone's career as a 
 statesman with a more generous and disinterested 
 good-will than I have. No one has more gladly appre- 
 ciated his gifts ; no one has more equitably interpreted 
 certain acts of his political life, nor has hailed his 
 successes with greater joy. But when he casts oflp the 
 character of a statesman, for which he has shown so 
 great capacity, to play the Canonist and Theologian, 
 for which he has here shown so little, and that with 
 the intent of sowing discord and animosities among six 
 millions of his fellow-countrymen — and, I must more- 
 over add, with an indulgence of unchastened language 
 rarely to be equalled — I feel bound to say that he has 
 been betrayed into an act for which I can find no ade- 
 quate excuse. I must tell him that if he would incline 
 the Catholics of the Empire to accept the ministries 
 of his compassion, he must first purify his style 
 both of writing and of thinking. Catholics are 
 not to be convinced or persuaded by such phrases 
 as ' the present perilous Pontificate ; ' ' the Papal 
 chair, its aiders and abettors ; ' ' the great hierarchic 
 power and those who have egged it on; ' ' the 
 present degradation of the Episcopal order;' 'the 
 subserviency or pliability of the Council ; ' ' hideous 
 mummies; ' 'head-quarters;' ' the follies of Ecclesias- 
 tical power; ' ' foreign arrogance ; ' ' the myrmidons of 
 the Apostolic Chamber,' 'the foreign influence of a 
 
 N 
 
178 CONCLUSION. 
 
 caste.' ' I transcribe these words from his pages with 
 repugnance; not, indeed, for our sake against \vliom 
 they are levelled, but for the statesman who has 
 thought them fitting. Mr. Gladstone can do many 
 things ; but he cannot do all things, He has a strong 
 hand; but there is a bow which he canno'c bend. 
 He has here tried his hand at a task for which, 
 without something more than mere literary knowledge, 
 even hiv«i varied gifts will not suffice. This Expostu- 
 lation is, as I have already said, an act out of all 
 harmony and proportion with a great statesman's life. 
 
 I have written these words with a painful 
 eonstraint; but, cost what it may, duty must be 
 done, and I believe it to be my duty to record this 
 judgment, in behalf of the Catholics of this country, 
 on an act unjust in itself, and therefore not only bar- 
 ren of all good result, but charged with grave public 
 dangers. 
 
 But, I cannot break off with a note so cheerless. If 
 this Expostulation has cast down many hopes both of 
 a public and a private kind, we cannot altogether regret 
 its publication. If such mistrusts and misconceptions 
 existed in the minds of our fellow-subjects, the 
 sooner and the more openly they were made public 
 the better. We are not content to be tolerated as 
 suspect or dangerous persons, or to be set at large 
 upon good behaviour. We thank Mr. Gladstone 
 for gaining us the hearing which we have had before 
 the public justice of our country ; and we are 
 
CONCLUSION. 179 
 
 confident that his impeachment will be withdrawn. 
 His own mind is too large, too just, and too upright 
 to refuse to acknowledge an error, when he sees that 
 he has been misled. It is also too clear and too 
 accurate not to perceive that such is now the fact. 
 I see in this the augury of a happier and more 
 peaceful future than if this momentary conflict had 
 never arisen. We shall all understand each other 
 better. Our civil and religious peace at home will 
 be firmer by this trial. 
 
 If the great German Empire shall only learn in 
 time, thirteen millions of contented Catholic subjects, 
 reconciled as they still may be by a return of just laws, 
 will give a support to its unity which nothing can 
 shake. 
 
 If Italy shall only come to see that the 
 ' Roman question ' is, and for ever will be, a 
 source of weakness, contention, and danger to its 
 welfare ; and, seeing this, shall solve it peacefully, 
 as Italy alone can do, by undoing its un- Catholic 
 and therefore un-Italian policy, then its unity and in- 
 dependence will be secured by the spontaneous co- 
 operation of a united people, gathered around the 
 centre of all its Christian glories. Such a solution 
 would then be consecrated by the highest sanctions 
 of its faith. If wise counsels prevail, and wise friends 
 of Italy shall gain its ear, it may be again what once 
 it was, the foremost people in the Christian world. 
 
 And, lastly, for ourselves, our world-wide Empire 
 n2 
 
180 CONCLUSION. 
 
 cannot turn back upon its path without disintegration. 
 It is bound together, not by material force, but by the 
 moral bond of just laws and the glad consent of a 
 free people. But justice and freedom cannot be put 
 asunder. They flow from one source ; they can be 
 kept pure only by the same stream. They have 
 come down to us from our Christianity. Divided as 
 we are, we are a Christian people still. By religious 
 conflict our Christianity will waste away as a moth 
 fretting a garment. By religious peace, all that is 
 true, and wise, and just, and Christian, will be per- 
 petually multiplied, binding indissolubly in one all 
 men and all races of our Imperial Commonwealth. 
 
APPENDICES, 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 Innooentixjs III. Pe^latis per Peanciam oonstitutis, 
 
 A.D. 1200. 
 
 NoviT Ille, qui nihil ignorat : et infra, 
 
 Non putet aliquis, quod juris dictionem illustris Eegis 
 Francorum perturbare, aut minuere intendamus, cum ipse 
 jurisdictionem nostram nee velit, nee debeat impedire. 
 Sed cum Dominus dicat in Evangelic, ' Si peecaverit in te 
 frater tuus, vade et corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum : 
 si te audierit, lucratus eris fratreni tuum : si te non audierit, 
 adhibe tecum unum vel duos, ut in ore duorum vel trium 
 testium stet omne verbum. Quod si te non audierit, die 
 Eeclesise : si autem Ecelesiam non audierit, sit tibi sieut 
 ethnicus et publicanus.' * Et Eex Anglise sit paratus 
 sufficienter ostendere, quod Eex Francorum peccat in 
 ipsum, et ipse circa eum in correctione proeessit secundum 
 regulam Evangelicam, et tandem quia nuUo modo profecit, 
 dixit Eeclesise. Quomodo nos, qui sumus ad regimen univer- 
 salis Ecclesise supema dispositione vocati, mandatum 
 divinum possumus non exaudire, ut non proeedamus secun- 
 dum formam ipsius ? Msi forsitan ipse coram nobis, vel 
 Legato nostro, sufficientem in contrarium rationem osten- 
 dat. Non enim intendimus jvdicare defeudo, eujus ad ipsum 
 
 ' Mqtt. xviii. 15-17. 
 
182 APPENDICES. 
 
 spedat juddcium : nisi forte jure communi per specials 
 privilegium, vel contrariam consuetudinem aliquid sit 
 detractum : sed decernere de peccato, cujus ad nos pertinet 
 sine duhitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere posmmus 
 
 et dehemus Cum enim non humause constitutioni, 
 
 sed diviuEe potius innitamur, quia potestas nostra non est 
 ex liomine, sed ex Deo, nuUus qui sit sanse mentis ignorat, 
 quin ad oificium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortali 
 peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum : et si correctio- 
 nem contempserit, per districtionem eeclesiasticam coer- 
 cere. Sed forsan dicetur, quod aliter cum regibus et 
 aliter cum aliis est agendum. Cseterum scriptum novimus 
 in lege divina : ' Ita magnum judicabis ut parvum ; nee erit 
 apud te acceptio personarum.' * — Corpus Juris Canonici, 
 Decret. Gregor. lib. ii. tit. i. cap. xiii. 
 
 BONIPAOIUS VIII., AD PBRPETUAM EEI MeMOKIAM. 
 A.D. 1302. 
 
 TJnam Sanctam Bcclesiam Catholicam et ipsam Apo- 
 stolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque 
 banc firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur : extra 
 quam nee salus est, nee remissio peccatorum, Sponso in 
 Canticis proclamante, ' Una est columba mea, perfecta mea : 
 una est matri suse, electa genitrici sues : ' ^ quae unum 
 corpus mysticum reprsesentat, cujus caput Christus, 
 Christi vero Deus. In qua unus Dominus, una fides, 
 unum baptisma.^ Una nempe fuit Diluvii tempore area 
 Noe, unam Bcclesiam prsefigurans, quse in uno cubito 
 consummata,* unum, ISToe videlicet, gubernatorem babuit 
 et rectorem, extra quam omnia subsistentia super tefram 
 legimus fuisse deleta. Hanc autem veneramur et unicam ; 
 
 ' Deut. i. 17. 2 Cant. vi. 8. ^ gph. iv. 5. ^ Gen. vi. 16. 
 
APPENDIX A. 183 
 
 dicente Domino in Proplieta, ' Erue a framea, Deus, 
 
 animam meam et de manu canis unicam meam ; ' ' pro 
 
 anima euim, id est, pro seipso capite simul oravit et 
 
 corpore : quod corpus unicam scilicet Ecclesiam nominavit, 
 
 propter sponsi, fidei, sacramentorum et charitatis Ecclesise 
 
 unitatem. Hsec est tunica illaDominiinconsutilis,^qu£Escissa 
 
 non fuit sed sorte provenit. Igitur Ecclesise unius et unicse 
 
 unum corpus, unum caput, non duo ca,pita quasi nionstrum, 
 
 Christus videlicet, et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique 
 
 successor ; dicente Domino ipsi Petro, ' Pasce oves meas,' ^ 
 
 ' meas,' inquit, et generaliter non singulariter lias vel illas, 
 
 per quod commisisse sibi intelligitur universas. Sive ergo 
 
 Grseci, sive alii se dicant Petro ej usque successoribus non 
 
 esse commissos, fateantur necesse se de ovibus Christi non 
 
 esse ; dicente Domino in Joanne ' unum ovile et unicum 
 
 esse pastorem.'* In hac ejusque potestate duos esse 
 
 gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis 
 
 dictis instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis, ' Ecce gladii 
 
 duo hie,' ^ in Ecclesia scilicet, cum Apostoli loquei-entur, 
 
 non respondit Dominus nimis esse sed satis. Certe qui in 
 
 potestate Petii temporalem gladium esse negat, male 
 
 verbum attendit Domini proferentis, ' Converte gladium 
 
 tuum in vaginam.' ^ TJterque ergo est in potestate Ecclesise, 
 
 spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis. Sed is quidem 
 
 pro Ecclesia, ille vero ab Ecclesia exercendus. Hie sacer- 
 
 dotis, is manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum et 
 
 patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub 
 
 gladio et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potes- 
 
 tati : nam cum dicat Apostolus, ' Non est potestas nisi a 
 
 Deo, quae autem sunt a Deo ordinata sunt : ' ' non autem 
 
 • Psalm xxi. 21. ^ Joann. xix. 23, 24. ^ Joann. xsi. 17. 
 *. Jbann. x. 16. ^ Luc. xxii. 38. ^ M.9,ti,. xxvi. 52. 
 
 ^ Eom. xiii. 1. 
 
184 APPENDICES. 
 
 ordinata essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio, et tanquam 
 inferior reduceretur per alium in suprema. Nam secun- 
 dum beatum Dionysium, lex divinitatis est, infima per 
 media in suprema reduci. Non ergo secundum ordinem 
 universi omnia seque ac immediate, sed infima per media 
 et inferiora per superiora ad ordinem reducuntur. Spiri- 
 tualem autem et dignitate et nobilitate terrenam quam- 
 libet prsecellere pfttestatem, oportet tanto clarius nos 
 fateri quanto spiritualia temporalia antecellunt. Quod 
 etiam ex decimarum datione, et benedictione, et sanctifi- 
 catione, ex ipsius potestatis acceptione, ex ipsarum rerum 
 gubernatione claris oculis intuemur. Nam veritate tes- 
 tante, spirituals potestas terrenam potestatem instituere 
 habet et judicare, si bona non fuerit, sic de Ecclesia et 
 ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremise: 
 ' Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna,' ' et csetera 
 quse sequuntur. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judica- 
 bitur a potestate spirituali, sed si deviat spiritualis minor 
 a suo superiori : si vero suprema, a solo Deo, non ab 
 homine poterit judicari, testante Apostolo, ' Spiritualis 
 homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a nemine judicatur.' ^* 
 Est autem bseo auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exercea- 
 tur per hominem, non humana, sed potius divina, ore 
 divino Petro data, sibique suisque successoribus in ipso, 
 quern confessus fuit petra firmata, dicente Domino ipsi 
 Petro, 'Quodcunque ligaveris,'^ etc. Quicunque igitur 
 huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatse resistit, Dei ordinationi 
 resistit,* nisi duo sicut Manichaeus fingat esse principia : 
 quod falsum et hsereticum judicamus : quia testante 
 Moyse, non in principiis, sed in principio coelum Deus 
 creavit et terram.^ Porro subesse Eomano Pontifici 
 
 1 Hier. i. 10. ^ i Cor. ii. 15. ^ j^iatt. xvi. 19. 
 
 * Kom. xiii. 2. « Gen. i. 1. 
 
APPENDIX A. 185 
 
 omni liumanse creaturse declaramus, dicimus, definimus et 
 pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. 
 
 Datum Laterani xiv kal. Decembris, pontificatus 
 nostri anno octavo. 
 
 Corpus Juris Canonici. Extravag. Gommun. lib. i. 
 De Majoritate et Obedientia, cap. i. 
 
 Clementis Y. Diploma, a.d. 1306. 
 
 Clemens Episcopus, etc. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. 
 
 Meruit carissimi filii nostri Philippi regis Francorum 
 illustris sincerse devotionis ad nos et Ecclesiam Eoma- 
 nam integritas, et progenitorum suorum prseclara merita 
 meruerunt, meruit insuper fida regnicolarum pietas, ac 
 devotionis sinceritas, ut tam regnum quam regem favore 
 benevolo prosequamur. Hinc est quod nos dicto regi et 
 regno per definitionem seu declarationem bonse memorise 
 Bonifacii PP. VIII. prsedecessoris nostri, quae incipit TJnam 
 sanctum, nullum volumus vel intendimus prsejudicium 
 generari. Nee quod per illam rex, regnum, regnicolse 
 prselibati amplius Ecclesise sint subjecti quam antea ex- 
 istebant. Sed omnia intelligantur in eodem esse statu 
 quo erant ante definitionem prsefatam., tam quantum ad 
 Ecclesiam quam etiam quod regem et regnum superius 
 nominates. 
 
 Datum Lugduni kalendis Eebruarii, pontificatus 
 nostri anno primo. 
 
 Labbe, Concilia, sub ann. 1305, tom. xiv. p. 1374, 
 ed. Yen. 1731. 
 
186 APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Hxtract from the Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI. 
 ' Mirari Vos,' August 15, 1832. 
 
 As we have learned that certain writings spread abroad 
 among the people publish doctrines which destroy the 
 loyalty and submission due to princes, and kindle every- 
 where the torch of civil discord, we have to take especial 
 care that the nations may not be deceived thereby, and led 
 away from the right path. Let all bear in mind, according 
 to the words of the Apostle, that 'there is no power but 
 from God, and those that are ordained of God; therefore 
 he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, 
 and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.' ' 
 
 Wherefore both divine and human laws cry out against 
 those who, by basely plotting civil discord and sedition, 
 abandon their allegiance to their princes and unite to 
 drive them from their thrones. 
 
 For this reason, to avoid so base a crime, it is a well- 
 known fact that the first Christians, in the midst of per- 
 secutions, rendered meritorious service to their Emperors 
 and to the safety of the Empire. This they "showed by 
 the clearest proofs, not only in fulfilling with all loyalty 
 and promptitude all that was commanded them riot 
 contrary to their religion, but by persevering therein even 
 to shedding their blood in battle for them. 
 
 ' Christian soldiers,' says St. Augustine, ' served an 
 unbelieving Emperor, but when the cause of Christ was in 
 question, they acknowledged only Him who is in Heaven. 
 They distinguished between the Eternal Lord and a tem- 
 
 ' Eom. xiii. 2. 
 
APPENDIX B. 187 
 
 poral lord, and were nevertTieless subject to the temporal 
 for the sake of their Eternal Lord.' ' 
 
 St. Maurice, the invincible martyr, the captain of the 
 Theban Legion, had this before his eyes when, as St. 
 Eucherius relates, he gave his answer to the Emperor : — 
 ' We are your soldiers, Emperor, but nevertheless, 
 we are free to confess, the servants of God. . . . And now 
 we are not driven into rebellion, even to save our lives, for 
 here we have arms in our hands, and we do not fight, 
 because we have the will to die rather than to slay.' 
 
 This loyalty of the first Christians to their princes is the 
 more conspicuous if we consider with TertuUian, that 
 Christians at that time ' were not wanting in numbers and 
 strength if they had wished for open war. We are but of 
 yesterday, and we are found everywhere among you, in your 
 cities, islands, strongholds, towns, public places, in your 
 camps, your tribes, your companies, in your palaces, your 
 senate, and your forum. . . . For what warfare should we 
 not have been able and wUling, even at great odds, who- 
 so readily offer ourselves to death, if our religion did not 
 oblige us rather to die than to slay ? ... If we, so large 
 a number as we are, had broken away from you and gone 
 to some distant corner of the world, the loss of so many 
 citizens, even such as we are, would have put your empire 
 to shame, nay, would have punished you by the very loss. 
 Without doubt you would have been daunted in your 
 solitude. . . . You would have asked over whom you were 
 ruliug : more enemies would have been left than citizens : 
 but now you have fewer enemies, owing to the number of 
 Christians.' ^ 
 
 These luminous examples of immovable loyalty to 
 princes, which necessarily followed from the holy precepts 
 
 ' St. August, in Psalm cxxiv. n. 7. 
 ^ TertuUian in Apolog. cap. xxxvii. 
 
188 APPENDICES. 
 
 of the Christian religion, at once condemn the detestable 
 pride and wickedness of those who, boiling with unbridled 
 lust for an inordinate liberty, are wholly engaged in 
 destroying and tearing to pieces all the rights of princes 
 in order to reduce the nations to slavery under pretence of 
 liberty. — See Becueil des Allocutions des Souverains Pon- 
 tifes. Paris, Le Cl^re, 1865, pp. 165-6. 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 For the accuracy of the following statement I 
 have direct evidence: — 
 
 For several years past the Eadical authorities of the 
 Diocese of Basle have persecuted the Catholic Church, as 
 they still continue to do. Formerly the persecution was 
 carried into effect, partly by violence and partly by under- 
 hand means ; but it was always specious and very in- 
 jurious to religion. It was invariably carried on in the 
 name of progress, liberty, and the welfare of the people, 
 whom it pretended to free from the tyranny of the priest- 
 hood and the despotism of Rome. 
 
 The Catholic populations were thus oppressed by the 
 so-called omnipotence of the State, and, incredible as it 
 would seem under a republican form of government, the 
 State, or rather a few individuals acting in its name, sup- 
 ported by a non-Catholic majority, and backed by the 
 Radical element, have succeeded in monopolising power, 
 and in maintaining themselves in it by terrorism and 
 bribery for a length of years, assuming to themselves the 
 
APPENDIX C. 189 
 
 functions of the Holy See and the Episcopate, and so 
 adding to their temporal rule the spiritual government of 
 souls. Not only have they possessed themselves of the 
 direction of all public schools, and of the administration 
 of all pious foundations, but they have destroyed all 
 monastic, capitular, and ecclesiastical institutions, claimed 
 the right to regulate the parochial system, the preaching 
 of the Gospel, catechizing, confessions, first communions 
 of children, the celebration of public worship, processions, 
 burials and benedictions, and even extended their jurisdic- 
 tion to matrimonial causes. More than this, by the 
 Federal Constitution, which the recent revolutionary laws 
 have just extended to the Catholic cantons, contrary to 
 the wiU of the populations as expressed by the vote of 
 an immense majority, the State has virtually and in- 
 sidiously suppressed the Catholic Church by the introduc- 
 tion of that article of the Federal Code by which the 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished. (Art. 58.) 
 
 Finally, in five cantons of the Diocese of Basle, the 
 Catholic populations have lost all liberty of worship in a 
 more or less degree. 
 
 "Since the Council of the Vatican more especially, the 
 war against the Church has been waged with greater 
 acrimony in the Diocese of Basle, and since the victories 
 of Prussia, our enemies have acted more openly. The 
 five governments of Soleure, Argovie, Basle-Campagne, 
 Berne, and Thm^govie have sent their delegates to an 
 assembly calling itself a Diocesan Conference, composed 
 not of ecclesiastics, but in great part of Protestants, and 
 of lay-Catholics notoriously hostUe to the Church. Such 
 a body of course possessed no legal authority, but not- 
 withstanding its patent incapacity, it committed, among 
 many other illegal and unjust acts, that of pronouncing 
 a sentence of deprivation against the Bishop of Basle, 
 on the 29th of January, 1873. The principal offence 
 
190 APPENDICES. 
 
 imputed to him was, tliat of having published the definition 
 of Papal Infallibility in his diocese, and of having refused 
 to withdraw the publication. Several minor accusations 
 were brought against him ; but it may be remarked that 
 the authorities were unable to prove that he had violated 
 a single law during the whole course of his episcopate. 
 He was therefore deprived of his see solely because he had 
 fulfilled the duties of a Catholic bishop, and because he 
 would not separate himself from the unity of the Holy 
 See, by refusing to publish the decrees of the Vatican 
 Council. 
 
 Since the above attack on the liberties of the Catholic 
 populations, the Holy See, and the Church, a series of 
 laws favouring schism and apostasy have been passed by 
 the five cantonal governments in question. They have 
 forbidden the Bishop of Basle to exercise his episcopal 
 charge throughout the five cantons composing his diocese ; 
 and they have also forbidden the clergy to maintain any 
 official relations with him, so that the faithful suffer 
 grievous injury in their most sacred rights, and in their 
 most urgent religious needs, in common with the whole 
 Catholic priesthood, which has been punished in all ihe 
 cantons for having protested against these unjust acts. 
 
 But it is the Protestant Canton of Berne which has 
 signalised itself beyond all others by its despotism and 
 its cruelty. It has suspended all the parish priests of the 
 canton from their pastoral functions, and has since then 
 deprived them, as well as all their curates, to the number 
 of sixty-nine. It next pronounced sentence of exile on 
 the whole clergy, ninety in number, only excepting five or 
 six aged priests, who were, however, forbidden to say mass 
 save in their own rooms, or in any way to exercise their 
 sacred ministry. The government then drove all the 
 priests out of their churches and presbyteries, and con- 
 fiscated all their benefices and revenues, so that they are 
 
APPENDIX C. 191 
 
 deprived of all means of subsistence. Before the sentence 
 of exUe was carried out, many of them were moreover 
 punished by fine and imprisonment. The Catholic laity 
 has suffered there, and still has to suffer from every kind 
 of injustice : fines, imprisonment, dismissal from public 
 employment, are common, occurrences, and men, women, 
 nuns, and even children have been imprisoned for their 
 faith. 
 
 There are, at the present moment^ more than 60,000 
 Catholics in the Canton of Berne, who are deprived, as far 
 as State influence can effect it, of all religious help, 
 whether in life or in death, the exiled priests of the 
 Bernese Jura being arrested and cast into prison if dis- 
 covered within the cantonal limits. 
 
 The immense majority of the people, however, remain 
 firmly attached to their pastors. In many parishes not a 
 schismatic is to be found, and in others, containing a 
 numerous population, the exceptions are very few. In a 
 word, the Catholics of the Bernese Jura maintain their 
 fidelity to the faith of their fathers, and the only partisans 
 of the schism are apostates or persons long notoriously 
 hostile to the Church. 
 
 But the most revolting feature of the present persecu- 
 tion is that the Government of Berne has sought in every 
 part of Europe foreign priests in order to replace the law- 
 fully appointed clergy of the Jura. It has succeeded in 
 finding a certain number of suspended or apostate priests, 
 who have consented to act as the instruments of State 
 persecution. During the fourteen months which have 
 witnessed the exile of the sixty-nine faithful parish clergy, 
 twenty-five strangers have been brought to replace them. 
 These , men are of the worst moral antecedents. The 
 government, notwithstanding, has imposed them on the 
 parishioners, gives them profuse supplies of money, makes 
 ©ver the churches and presbyteries to them, and supports 
 
192 APPENDICES. 
 
 them in every way, while the native clergy are despoiled 
 and exiled. 
 
 The Catholics of the Jura being thus deprived of their 
 pastors, meet in farms or outhouses for common worship ; 
 and yet even this liberty is not always conceded to them. 
 It is only in profound secret they can receive the sacra- 
 ments, or hear mass, and they even bury their own dead 
 without the assistance of a priest. It is thus that 
 religious animosity, making common cause with Radicalism, 
 tyrannises over its fellow-citizens, who commit no offence 
 against the public peace, and who bear their proportionate 
 share of the public burdens ! 
 
 By the course it has pursued the Government of Berne 
 has violated the treaties and constitutions which protect 
 Catholic liberties within the cantons. In order to give a 
 colour of legality to future persecutions, it has voted a 
 new Ecclesiastical Constitution, expressly framed against 
 the interests of the Catholic Church in Switzerland, and 
 which it has imposed, against their wUl, on the Catholics 
 of Berne by a preponderant non-Catholic majority. 
 
 One consolation remains to us, namely, the fidelity of 
 the entire body of clergy to the Catholic Church. They 
 have freely chosen to lose all rather than betray the faith. 
 
 In order to perpetuate the supply of schismatic or 
 ' Old-Catholic * priests, the government has recently estab- 
 lished a faculty of theology in Berne. It has brought 
 professors from Germany, either Protestants or apostate 
 priests, and has induced a small number of students to 
 follow the courses, by paying them highly for their 
 attendance. 
 
 In Soleure, too, the Eadical authorities carry on the 
 same persecution of the Catholics of the cantons. The 
 government has succeeded in placing three schismatical 
 priests in as many parishes. It has suppressed and con- 
 fiscated the celebrated and ancient abbey of the Bene- 
 
APPENDIX C. 193 
 
 dictines at Mariastein and the Chapters of Schcennenwerth 
 and of the Bishopric of Basle at Soleure. In the other 
 mixed cantons, where the anti-Catholic Radicals are in a 
 majority, the Catholics have much to suffer. 
 
 The Diocese of Basle includes seven cantons — viz. 
 Soleure, Argovie, Thurgovie, Basle- Campagne, Berne, 
 Lucerne, and Zug. The two last-named cantons are 
 Catholic, and possess a just government. In the other 
 cantons the majority is Protestant. To these must be 
 added the city of Basle and the canton of Schaff hausen, 
 both of which form part of the same diocese. 
 
 The Diocese of Basle comprises 430,000 Catholics and 
 800,000 Protestants and otlier denominations. It contains 
 800 priests, only seven of whom have become Old Catholics. 
 The so-called Diocesan Conference has pushed its preten- 
 sions to the point of prescribing what authors are to be 
 used by ecclesiastical students in the seminary ! The 
 bishop was not even free to appoint the superior and his 
 assistants, but was obliged to obtain the ' Placet ' of the 
 State for such nominations, as well as for his Pastoral 
 Letters i 
 
 LONDON : PRINTED BT 
 
 SrOTTISWOODB AND CO., NRW-STRT^RT SQUARE 
 
 AND PARLIAMENT STRKF.T 
 
A FEW COMMENTS 
 
 ON 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S EXPOSTULATION. 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY CANON NEVILLE, 
 
 FOEMEK PEOFESSOK OP THEOLOGY IN THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH ; 
 
 AND 
 
 CONSULTING THEOLOGIAN TO SOME OP THE lEIBH BISHOPS AT THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 B. M. PICKERING, 196, PICCADILLY. 
 
 DUBLIN: McGLASHAN & GILL. 
 
N.B. — All expressions of Theological doctrines or opinions 
 given in these " Comments," must be understood to be given 
 under the supreme censorship of the " Sedes Petri," to -which 
 it belongs to hold and prescribe the " Sana forma verborum." 
 
A FEW COMMENTS 
 
 ON 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S "EXPOSTULATION 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 On the 4tli November, 1874, Mr. Gladstone, late 
 Prime Minister, published and addressed to his Romari 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen an " Expostulation on the 
 Decrees of the Vatican Council- in their bearing on 
 CivU Allegiance." We must adopt the title "Expostu- 
 lation," as its author has chosen it, but the work is not 
 in the least an Expostulation. Its proper title would 
 be something of this kind — " Animadversions on the 
 Faith of Roman CathoUcs, since the Vatican Council, in 
 which it is shown : 1, that no Catholic can be loyal ; 
 2; that no man can become a Roman Catholic and re- 
 tain possession of his mental and moral freedom ; 3, 
 that Catholic teaching is irreconcilable with past 
 history and modern progress ; 4, that the Catholic re- 
 ligion is to be tolerated only under satisfactory 
 guarantees and explanations." 
 
 ' ' It is now the middle of January, 1875, and amongst 
 Catholics the Expostulation has been favorably re- 
 sponded to by only four. Of these, two have also 
 written themselves down "Enghshmen first. Catholics 
 
 B 
 
afterwards," thus exceeding in their obsequious liberality 
 the demand that had been made on them, and demon- 
 strating of what value their opinions are on the Vatican 
 Decrees, or indeed on any religious subject. A third 
 has made a calumnious, and, from a Catholic point of 
 view, blasphemous charge against a canonized Pope, 
 and has signally failed in substantiating it. The fourth 
 seems to be in possession of that " dangerous thing, a 
 little learning," which makes him imagine that he alone 
 of all men living understands the Decree of the Vatican 
 Council on Papal Infallibility. 
 
 . Four is not a large number of seceders for the Eo- 
 man Catholic population of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 The gain to Mr. Gladstone is' not great, neither is the 
 loss to the Church worth attending to, aU things con- 
 sidered. As regards Catholics, therefore, the Expostu- 
 lation is simply innocuous, and did not require an 
 answer ; but Mr. Gladstone's is a name that up to this 
 has carried weight with his countrymen, and his asser- 
 tions in the present instance are very daring, and his 
 assumption of knowledge of Catholic matters very pre- 
 tentious ; and thousands of well-meaning men outside 
 the Catholic Church wiU accept his statements at sight, 
 and will believe things about her that are not true and 
 that are calculated to disparage her, and their verdict 
 will be against her, unless they have an opportunity of 
 hearing apologists in her behalf. The present writer 
 has an additional reason, in some sense a personal one, 
 for not allowing the Expostulation to pass without a 
 comment; A good many years of his life were spent 
 
in the study and in the teaching of Theology, and it is 
 not easy to remain silent, and hear the science that one 
 loved and was proud of, mistaken and misrepresented as 
 Catholic Theology is in this Expostulation by Mr. 
 Gladstone. 
 
 In some of the replies already given, as it appears to 
 me, a niistake has heen made. It has been supposed 
 that the only, or, at least, the main question at issue, 
 was that of Allegiance, as affected by the-Vatican De- 
 crees, and into this supposition one is naturally led by 
 the title of the pamphlet. ' To accept this view is to 
 miss the main gist of Mr. Gladstone's composition, 
 which is, not to elicit in a friendly way from Catholics 
 an avowal of their undisturbed allegiance under the 
 Vatican Decrees, but to exhibit the Church of Rome as 
 arrogant in her claims, dishonest in her policy, shallow 
 and ignorant in her teaching — in fact, an effete institu- 
 tion which no modern State can tolerate within its 
 realm with any degree of security to itself To explain 
 satisfactorily the allegiance of Catholics at present, 
 would be, borrowing the word from Mr. Gladstone 
 himself, to blunt only one of the many " fangs" he has 
 whetted for his attack upon the Church. 
 
 The plan of reply which I have decided on adopting 
 is to foUow the writer closely through the many and 
 varied details of the Expostulation — not an easy 
 task — and to deal with its priucipal assertions and 
 arguments seriatim and sigillatim. On this account 
 I have called my attempt a " Few Comments on the 
 Expostulation." 
 
PRELIMINAKI. 
 
 In limine, as we sometimes say in the schools, on 
 the very threshold, before we enter into the house of 
 contention, it will be weU to define our relative posi- 
 tions with accuracy, lest we should hereafter, as is 
 usual witli controversialists, find ourselves in the con- 
 dition of adversaries encountering in the dark, dealing 
 out blows at random, and coming into actual collision 
 only by accident. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has cited the Church of Rome into 
 court — the court of public opinion — and has made 
 certain grave charges against her, and called upon her 
 for her defence. He is the accuser, she is the accused ; 
 he is bound to supply proof of what he charges her 
 with, not conjecture, not suspicion, but proof; she is 
 bound only to explanation. Again, from the title of 
 his work, and from the fact of its being addressed to 
 Roman Catholics, the proofs he supplies must be such 
 as ought to be conclusive with Roman Catholics. It 
 wiU not do to start from a Protestant, or rationalistic, 
 or other not admitted principle, and end in a conclusion 
 which Catholics are called on to accept. Mr. Gladstone 
 has not the privilege of being allowed to " beg the 
 question" any more than another controversialist. 
 Finally, if a proposition — I speak chiefly of main propo- 
 sitions — be susceptible of various meanings, I am bound 
 to recognise that meaning alone which is established 
 by argument, not any different or more comprehensive 
 one that may possibly be in the mind of the author. 
 
This will appear to some too formal a manner of 
 treating the Expostulation, and I shall, perhaps, he 
 charged with adhering too stifl3y to the rules of logical 
 interpretation. But how else is a writer of Mr. Glad- 
 stone's discursive and irregular habits of arguing to be 
 kept on the track ? He does not argue from broad 
 and admitted principles, but, for the most part, from 
 views peculiar to himself — views, I will add, that are not 
 the outcome of calm and dispassionate reason, but the 
 inspiring» of intense bitterness of feeling and strong 
 dislike. His own mind is at once the source and the 
 reason of his conclusions. 
 
 DIVISIOX OF SUBJECT. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone sets out by dividing his Expostulation 
 into three p^rts. The first inquires if the allegations 
 made in the "Contemporary Review" of October, 1874, 
 are true ? The second, if they are for any practical pur- 
 pose material ? And the third, if they are suitable to 
 be set forth by Mr. Gladstone ? And he undertakes 
 to establish an affirmative answer for all three. This 
 way of going to work is promising, whatever may 
 come of it afterwards. 
 
 Before entering into the regular treatment of his 
 questions, he thinks it necessary to make an observation 
 on the manner in which his words in the article of the 
 " Contemporary" were taken up by his Roman Catholic 
 fellow-countrymen. He fear» they have given " deep 
 offence," at which he seems rather surprised, as he does 
 
8 
 
 also at their being " treated as an attack made upon 
 Catholics generally, nay, as an insult offered them," 
 whereas Mr. Gladstone continues : " It is obvious to 
 reply that of Koman Catholics generally they state 
 nothing." Just so. To declare of Koman Catholics 
 generally that their civil allegiance and loyalty is, if 
 not unsound, at least questionable and precarious — to 
 assert that the tenets which they hold can be accepted 
 only with the forfeiture of mental and moral jfreedom — 
 that history and modern thought alike protest against 
 the absurdity of the doctrine which they profess in the 
 face of the world — aU this is " obviously" to say nothing 
 of them ! Of a certainty Mr. Gladstone is not serious. 
 
 He has not yet done with preliminary remarks, and 
 after sympathizing with quiet-minded Roman Catholics, 
 whoever they may be, he passes on to a comparison of 
 the conduct of the Roman Catholic Church and that of 
 "Orientals, Lutherans, Calvinists," &c., and makes 
 some extraordinary statements by implication. 
 
 " AU other Christian bodies are content with freedom 
 in their own domain." That is, Roman Catholics are 
 not. Happy people " all other Christian bodies," to 
 be allowed freedom witMn their own domain, whilst the 
 freedom we find associated with the Roman Catholic 
 Church to-day is the freedom which is taken with her of 
 despoiling her in Italy, of fining and imprisoning her in 
 Germany and Switzerland, and of calumniating her in 
 England. If they would but leave us our own domain 
 we would be very content. 
 
 " Orientals, Lutherans, &c., one and all in the pre- 
 
9 
 
 sent day, contentedly and thankfully accept the benefits 
 of civil order," which means — Roman Catholics do not. 
 
 Rather, Roman Catholics receive contentedly what 
 they get of them, but in a good many countries of 
 Europe at present they have not many to be thankful 
 for. 
 
 " They never pretend that the State is not its own 
 master." Those Roman Catholics do, must be the in- 
 ference. Wliat audacious fellows are those Roman 
 Catholics ! Perhaps Mr. Gladstone means that they 
 pretend that the State is not the master of somebody 
 else, videlicet, of the Church. Yes, they do pretend 
 that. 
 
 " They make no religious claims to temporal posses- 
 sions or advantages." And Catholics do make such 
 claims. When and where ? I may assume that Mr. 
 Gladstone here refers to the Pope. But the Pope's 
 claim to temporal possessions does not happen to be a 
 religious one — it happens to be the oldest legitimate 
 claim to temporal possessions that is in existence. 
 
 He endeavours, after all this, to makq it up with 
 "the mass of Roman Catholics individually," by 
 saddling his charges on the "leaders of their Church ;" 
 but it wiU not do. Roman Catholics individually are 
 one with their Church and its leaders, and they will 
 not accept as a compliment to them what is meant as 
 an insult to her. 
 
 A quotation from Archbishop Manning comes next, 
 which is evidently distorted from the meaning it had in 
 its author's context to something very different. Dr. 
 
10 
 
 Manning simply asserts that the Eoman Church is the 
 only one that is not the slave of " the civil governors 
 of the world." Mr. Gladstone will have him to say 
 that the Eoman Church claims to he the master of 
 "the civil governors of the world." 
 
 We have, after this — " The Rome of the middle ages 
 claimed universal monarchy. The modem Church of 
 Eome has abandoned nothing, has retracted nothing." 
 Therefore, we conclude, the modern Church of Eome 
 claims universal monarchy ! ! ! But Mr. Gladstone 
 proceeds — "Is that all? Far from it." But what is 
 far beyond " universal monarchy" he does not let us 
 know clearly. He speaks of some "brisk, vigorous, 
 and constant opposition to those outrageous claims," 
 which always kept "its orthodoxy and caused itself to be 
 respected, and sometimes gained the upper hand," 
 being now " put out of court" by the Vatican Decrees. 
 No biU of particulars being handed in, the names of 
 the opposition party or its leaders, time and country in 
 which the opposition took place, not being supplied by 
 Mr. Gladstone in a statement of so much importance, 
 I must object to be driven to conjecture, and have 
 only to meet a broad assertion by as broad a denial. 
 
 At length we have arrived at the Thesis. 
 
 " My propositions are these : 
 
 1. "That Eome has substituted for the proud boast 
 of ' semper eadem,' a policy of violence and change in 
 faith. 
 
 2. "That she has refurbished and paraded anew 
 every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused. 
 
11 
 
 3. " That no one can now become her convert without 
 renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing 
 his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another. 
 
 4. " That she (Kome) has equally repudiated modern 
 thought and ancient history." 
 
 In his argument or explanation, Mr. Gladstone takes 
 the first and fourth propositions together, and wishes 
 "to dispose of them summarily." I shall find it ne- 
 cessary to take them separately, and I fear I shall not 
 he able "to dispose of them summarily.'' They are 
 really, the first in particular, the most important mat- 
 ter in the controversy, for the second has little meaning 
 except in connexion with the fourth, and if the first be 
 false, the third cannot be in its principal assertion true. 
 
 The first proposition, as its author says, refers to a 
 fact, namely, that Roman Catholics were in the habit 
 of boasting that its doctrine was "semper eadem," al- 
 ways the same. I find it difficult to suppose that Mr. 
 Gladstone implies that the identity in faith claimed by 
 Catholics for their Church was such as to exclude new 
 definitions. Yet this must be his meaning. It is evident 
 fi:"om his words he speaks of Roman controversialists 
 arguing fi-om "the unbroken and absolute identity in be- 
 lief in the Roman Church from the times of our Saviour." 
 It is evident fi-om the office which he assigns to the 
 Church as in keeping with this " absolute identity in 
 belief which is "principally»that of witness to facts," not 
 "judge of doctrine," so that " her processes are subject 
 to a constant challenge and appeal to history." It is 
 evident from his scope, which is to show that "this 
 
12 
 
 perilous Pontificate" had no right to make the two 
 definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Papal 
 Infallibility. It is evident from his argument, which 
 undertakes to establish that the Church of Eome has 
 given up of late that " identity in belief," which she 
 formerly boasted of as being peculiar to her. If new 
 definitions of faith were admissible under the old 
 system as well as under the new, she has given up 
 nothing — she has made no change. "We are curious 
 to see the "Eoman Catholic controversialist" who 
 gives this notion of the " identity of belief" of his 
 Church, or who has excluded " a living authority " 
 from its teachings. The thing is simply incompatible 
 with the membership of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone now passes on from the " fact" to " the 
 opinion," and, as if some thick curtain had dropped 
 between him and what he has just said "of absolute 
 identity in belief," of the Church being a " witness to 
 facts" and not " a judge of doctrine," of the intro- 
 duction of the idea of " a living authority '' being an 
 innovation made within the last forty years, he 
 speaks " of the ancient definitions of the Church," and 
 with approval; he does not hesitate to make mention 
 of the definitions of the Council of Trent itself, and to 
 excuse them to some extent. Yet the matter of all 
 those definitions, old as well as new, is doctrine and 
 not " fact," and the authority defining them assumed 
 itself to be a "judge of doctrine" and not a mere 
 " witness to facts," and was believed to be such at all 
 times by all members of the Eoman Catholic Church. 
 
13 
 
 Can Mr. Gladstone have been ignorant of this? 
 And if not ignorant, with what sort of faith did he 
 use the expressions already given in his remarks upon 
 what he styles a " fact " ? 
 
 THE CHURCH AND HER IDENTITY OF FAITH. 
 
 Misstatements call for full statements, and I hope 
 I shall be excused by my reader if I go into this 
 matter of the "identity in belief" in the Catholic 
 Church with some fulness, in order to explain in 
 what sense it is held by Catholics to be "semper " and 
 even " ubique eadem," always and everywhere one and 
 the same. I shall give our system as briefly and as 
 clearly as I can. 
 
 We begin by deducing from the words of St. Paul 
 in his Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. iv. ver. 5 : " One 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism,'' that the Church of 
 Christ is essentially one in faith. From the same 
 source (Epistle to Galatians, chap. i. ver. 8), we infer 
 that this faith is something so stable, so fixed, that 
 it is not to be put aside for another belief, although 
 Paul himself, or even an angel from heaven, were to 
 attempt the substitution. "We conclude that this 
 faith, one and fixed, is identical with the " deposit '' 
 of which the same Apostle speaks so solicitously in 
 both his Epistles to St. Timothy: " Timothee deposi- 
 tum custodi." We identify this " faith " or " deposit " 
 with the object of our Saviour's commission, when he 
 authorizes and commands his Apostles to "go and 
 
14 
 
 tench all nations — teaching them to observe whatever I 
 have commanded you." — Matt. xxvi. We note par- 
 ticularly that He does not say some of those things, 
 but " all whatsoever." "We advert to the use of the 
 same word " all truth " in the discourse of Christ in 
 the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel, as also to His 
 words in 14th chapter and 26th verse, which are iden- 
 tical in meaning with those of the commission — "The 
 Paraclete will teach you all things and bring • all 
 things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to 
 you." The object spoken of in all these passages we 
 call the " corpus doctrinse," or aggregate of the teach- 
 ings of Christ, and in respect of its being given in 
 trust to the Apostles, we call it the " depositum fidei " 
 — "deposit of faith." This " corpus doctrinse " we 
 hold to have come perfect and complete from the 
 hands of Christ, and not to have been increased by 
 any new revelation since. The depositio, or placing of 
 this body of doctrine in the charge of the Church, we 
 believe to have been finally made and secured when 
 the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pen- 
 tecost. We believe that the commission to teach was 
 not given to the Apostles so as to expire with them, 
 but so as to be continued in some form of succession, 
 because He said: " And behold I am with you all days 
 even to the consummation of the world," and we call 
 the persons that constitute the succession the Ec- 
 clesia docens, and we claim for this Ecdesia 
 docens-^ 
 
15 
 
 1. That it holds in its charge the "corpus doc- 
 triase" — ia other words, that the " depositum iidei" 
 is with it. 
 
 2. That it has authority to teach every truth 
 contained in the deposit. 
 
 3. That Christ, through the Spirit of Truth, is 
 always assisting at its teaching, so that it cannot err. 
 
 4. That its charge or commission has no limit of 
 duration but the end of time. This is our system of 
 the Church — a most consistent, most reasonable one — ■ 
 two things only being assumed, that Christ is the 
 Truth, and that we have His words. 
 
 A teaching body implies a body to be taught, and 
 hence we have an Ecclesia audiens hearing what 
 tlie Teaching Church addresses to it. " If he will not 
 hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and 
 the publican." — Matt, xviii. 17. We have both 
 bodies here indicated, with their relative duties and 
 obligations. 
 
 The Ecclesia audiens is bound to hear, that is, to 
 believe internally and profess externally what the Ec- 
 clesia docens has proposed as necessary to be beliieved 
 and professed. Secondly, she must be prepared to 
 believe and profess whatever the Ecclesiu docens may 
 hereafter propose as in the same manner necessary. 
 By the first act of obedience identity in explicit faith, 
 and by the second identity in implicit faith, is at once 
 secured for all the members of the Church, from the 
 'first to the last, from the highest' to the lowest, in all 
 places and at all times. Thus, through their faith in its 
 
16 
 
 custodian, they become believers in the whole body of 
 truth revealed by Christ. 
 
 This Ecclesia docens, in the fulfilment of its 
 divine commission, finds it necessary or useful, from 
 time to time, to use its privilege of teaching some 
 truth that is contained in the " depositum fidei," but 
 which has not been hitherto proposed to the Ecclesia 
 audiens as a matter of necessary belief. This we call 
 a new definition — a defining of the truth as revealed 
 by Christ. The reasons that actuate the Church to 
 make new definitions of faith are not subjects for our 
 criticism. There is only One responsible for her pro- 
 ceedings — He Avho promised to be with her to the end 
 of time. But a new definition being made and pro- 
 posed to the universal Church, the part of the Ecclesia 
 audiens is to believe. Before the definition we are 
 free to argue, to discuss, to hold the negative or the 
 affirmative— once the Ecclesia docens has spoken, 
 opinion gives way to faith, divisions of judgment 
 cease, and unity prevails. This, and no other, is the 
 identity in faith of the Catholic Church. 
 
 In the definition of Papal Infallibility in the Vati- 
 can Council there was no departuf-e, not the slightest, 
 from the ordinary and regular process of defining. 
 Infallibility in teaching was always believed to be the 
 privilege of the Ecclesia docens. The head of the 
 Ecclesia docens was admitted to be the Pope. Kegu- 
 larly, no dogmatic teaching could be addressed to the 
 universal Church unless it emanated from the Pope. 
 No Council, however general in its number of assist- 
 
17 
 
 ing Bishops, and regular in its proceedings, was ac- 
 cepted as definitive and binding until it had received 
 the confirmation of the Pope. All this was, at all 
 times, of universal admission amongst Catholics. On 
 one point they were divided, or, more correctly speak- 
 ing, for a time a difference of opinion existed as to 
 the binding and definitive force of Pontifical Decrees 
 or judgments without, or before, they had received the 
 consent of the Bishops. The Galilean opinion — so 
 called because it was held by many of the French 
 Theologians —was, that the decrees of the Pontiff were 
 not final and irreformable of themselves, but that they 
 became such when the assent, tacit or express, of the 
 Bishops was given to them. The Ultramontanes, as 
 they are usually designated, taught, on the contrary, 
 that the Pope's authority to teach the doctrine of 
 Christ without error came to him through St. Peter, 
 and was completely independent of the assent or dis- 
 sent of the Bishops of the Church. It is late now to 
 discuss the comparative merits of the two theses ; one 
 remark, however, will not be out of place — the opinion 
 prevailing throughout the Church, and the one accord- 
 ing to which the Church worked, was that of the 
 Ultramontane school. Errors in faith and morals were 
 condemned; doubtful questions were settled — in one 
 word, the entire teaching function of the Church pro- 
 ceeded on the principle of Papal Infallibility. It will 
 be sufiacient to cite two remarkable instances : one, 
 from an early period of the Church's history — the 
 other, nearer to our own times — of leading errors that 
 
18 
 
 received their "quietus" in this manner — that of 
 Pelagianism, which denied the necessity of divine 
 grace, which was condemned by Innocent I. ; and that 
 of Jansenism, which taught that some of God's pre- 
 cepts were impossible Of fulfilment, and that Christ 
 did not die for all men — which was condemned by 
 Innocent X. 
 
 The definition of Infallibility in the Vatican Council 
 did not, therefore, make any practical change in the 
 mode of teaching always in use in the Church, nor was 
 it a change in faith and falsification of the Catholic 
 theory of " semper eadem," for she does not substitute 
 the doctrine of Papal Infallibility for the doctrine of 
 Papal Fallibility — that would be a change in faith ; 
 but she makes Papal Infallibility, which had been al- 
 ways a matter of implicit faith, henceforth a matter of 
 explicit faith, and renders the opinion of Papal Falli- 
 bility no longer tenable. It is the same thing that she 
 did for other doctrines in the Council of Trent, or in 
 any of the (Ecumenical Councils from the beginning. 
 
 "We may now resume our parley with Mr. Glad- 
 stone. He tells us that Rome has not only changed 
 her faith, but has adopted a " policy of violence.'' 
 Policy of violence ! How like a grim joke this sounds ! 
 The violence of Pio Nono, plundered and imprisoned, 
 with the cry of the assassins, " morte a'l Pa,pa," ascend- 
 ing to his chambers, while Mr. Gladstone's friends 
 stand by passive and uninterfering. Something like 
 this was said a good many years ago in the hall of 
 
19 
 
 Annas, when the servant made it out that Jesus was 
 insulting the high priest, and for it smote Him on the 
 face. 
 
 "A policy of violence" is toned down further on to 
 the "aiming of deadly blows" at some imaginary 
 school of Theology, but the stronger and more natural 
 sense of the phrase is re-asserted, when the Pope is 
 charged with claiming, in "the substance of the Propo- 
 sitions" of the Syllabus, the right of " inflicting 
 penalty of life, limb, liberty, goods, the title to depose 
 sovereigns," &c. 
 
 We are now in a position to examine the theory of 
 the Church of which our author seems to approve, and 
 to compare it with the other theory which has been 
 supplied to us out of the teachings of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 " Go and teach all nations," said Christ, and " I 
 will send you the Spirit of Truth to teach you all 
 truth." " Go," propounds Mr. Gladstone, " and have 
 nothing to do with the judging of doctrine^ but bear 
 witness to facts, and be very particular to keep square 
 with history." The spirit of , history — and such his- 
 tory as we have in these countries for the Spirit of 
 Truth — " not Jesus, but Barrabas." He goes on : 
 "Recent decrees are at war with "modern thought, 
 and involve a violent breach with history." " Modern 
 thought !" Here we have another check upon the 
 Church of Christ to keep her straight in her teaching, 
 but, as it wUl appear in another portion of the Ex- 
 postulation when the Syllabus comes under discussion, 
 we shall put off our observation on it for the present. 
 
 c 
 
20 
 
 " Violent breach with history !" What a worshipper 
 of history is Mr, Gladstone ! " Violent breach with 
 history !" How often is a sounding phrase that 
 strikes well on the ear discovered to be hollow and 
 empty when it is tested for meaning? Pray, what is 
 there so sacred, so inviolable in history, that we are 
 not to break with it ? The World is perpetually 
 breaking with history, and why not the Church if ifc 
 be desirable, and involve no infringement of her con- 
 stitution ? Socially, politically, scientifically, we are 
 every day breaking with history. There is nothing in 
 the phrase, Mr. Gladstone, not even when wrapped up 
 in its robe of vagueness. 
 
 Meantime, I am very far from admitting that the 
 Church has the slightest quarrel with history, much less 
 a " violent breach" in her " enlargement of the neces- 
 sary creed of Christendom" by new definitions of faith. 
 This is a process that history is quite familiar with. 
 In Councils and out of Councils, the Church has been 
 enlarging the necessary faith of Christendom in every 
 age of its existence from Peter to Pius, and unless 
 the affairs of this world are wound up more speedily 
 than we have an idea of at present, she will continue 
 to enlarge it in the ages to come. Our author does 
 not seem to approve of this ever-increasing demand 
 on our faith. He thinks the thing should have 
 stopped fifteen hundred years ago, and up to ths^t it 
 seems to have his approval. He is one of those 
 who, in virtue of a self-assumed commission, think 
 themselves entitled to sit in judgment on the Church 
 of Christ, in oT-der to inquire into the manner in 
 
21 
 
 whicli she has conducted herself since her institution. 
 They generally find that "for the first three centuries 
 of her existence she got on tolerably well — after that 
 time, she has not been so satisfactory." This appears 
 to be Mr. Gladstone's finding also. 
 
 The circumstances under which the Church was 
 justified in making those " ancient definitions," and 
 which, by a stretch, are extended to the Council of 
 Trent, are that " they sprang from and related to 
 theories rampant at the time, and regarded as menac- 
 ing to Christian belief." But in the Decrees of this 
 perilous period he cannot discover a shadow of justi- 
 fication. 
 
 The Decrees alluded to are those of the Immaculate 
 Conception and of Papal Infallibility, and in referring 
 to the former he has the bad taste to use a word which 
 he knows to be insulting to Catholics and inapplica- 
 ble to their doctrine; for he knows that "latreia" 
 means the worship due to God alone, which he also 
 knows that Catholics do not give to the Blessed Virgin 
 Mary. We Catholics are accustomed to this sort of 
 treatment, but we are not accustomed to receive it 
 from men of Mr. Gladstone's acquirements and 
 position. 
 
 But omitting this, and accepting, for experiment 
 sake, his view of the circumstances that justify the 
 Church in proceeding to definition, there are not to 
 be found in the history of Christianity, cases more 
 completely justifiable than those he has had the infe- 
 licity to select. Never were theories more ramptot 
 than those directed by men, calling themselves Chris- 
 
22 
 
 tians, against tlie dignity of the Mother of God aud 
 the authority of the Sovereign PontiiFin our own times. 
 The entire Christianity of countless numbers of men 
 appeared to consist of unceasing efforts to degrade the 
 one and to insult the other. A gainst these — not simple 
 menaces, but open outrages on Christian belief, even 
 merely historically considered — it became necessary for 
 the Church, in the defence of Catholic truth, to raise 
 her voice, and to command her children, under the 
 sanction of her infallible teaching, to profess before 
 men the complete and perfect sinlessness of Mary, 
 the Mother of God, and the unerring authority of the 
 successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has, however, further objection to 
 these two definitions, for that they " aim deadly blows 
 at the old, historic, scientific, and moderate school," we 
 presume of Theology. I have been hearing of Catho- 
 lic Theological schools since I first took an Ethic 
 treatise in my hands, some thirty years ago ; but 
 the " old, historic, scientific, and moderate school'' is 
 not amongst them. There are the Scotists and the 
 Thomists, the Galilean and the Ultramontane; and, in 
 the matter of grace, the Augustinians, and the Moli- 
 nists, and the Congruists, and in Moral Theology, 
 the Eigorists and the Probabilists, and so on ; but 
 the " old, historic, scientific, and moderate ?" — No ; 
 '' non est inventa." Mr. Gladstone must have mistaken 
 some other establishment for the Church when he 
 was making the acquaintance of this many-titled 
 school. History and science are not the sources from 
 which Catholic schools of Theology derive their prin,- 
 
23 
 
 ciples and gather their conclusions, but the word of 
 God, the decrees of Councils and of Pontiffs, and the 
 teachings of the Fathers. History and science do 
 come in at times, but in their proper capacity, the one 
 to exemplify, the other to illustrate. If, however, we 
 were to admit that they were fair and sufficient grounds 
 for determining the judgment of the Church in the 
 defining of a doctrine, Mr. Gladstone would find that 
 he had again made a most unsuccessful guess in his 
 selection of the Immaculate Conception aud Papal 
 Infallibility as instances of definitions made in the 
 teeth of history or of^ science. 
 
 For the first. We have from the earlie stages of 
 Christianity the most abundant, and distinct, and 
 emphatic evidences of Christian belief in favour 
 of the exemption of the Blessed Virgin from all taint 
 of sin. A large volume, embodying the principle 
 amongst them, was published under the direction of 
 Father Passaglia at the time of the Definition, out of 
 which any one curious on the matter can solve for 
 himself the question — whether the doctrine of the 
 Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is 
 anti-historic ? 
 
 . Neither is it opposed to science, the Science proper 
 to such a subject. For, assuming the doctrine of the 
 Incarnation of the Son of God, with Mary for his 
 mother, for the purpose of man's redemption from sin, 
 her Inimaculate Conception comes out as an inevitable 
 consequence. 
 
 For the second. With the exception of the Gallican 
 
24 
 
 period, we have in the whole history of the Church 
 no appeal against the Infallibility of the Pope, although 
 he was uniformly teaching the Church from the very 
 beginning according to that doctrine. Nor, indeed, 
 did the Galilean appeal avail much; for throughout 
 the entire duration of Gallicanism, from the days of 
 Gerson to the Vatican Council, however strong the 
 talk it held in the schools, it was never able, with all 
 its State influence behind it, to cancel or reform a single 
 ex cathedra judgment or decree issued by the Pontiff 
 to the Church Universal. So much for its relation to 
 history. 
 
 Still less is it unscientific, for antecedently to, and 
 independently of the definition of the Vatican 
 Council, we Catholics always held, as of faith, 
 two principles, without which it would work very 
 badly together. We held for the universal Church 
 inerrancy in belief, and for the Pope, in virtue 
 of his primacy, the right of teaching that universal 
 Church, A fallible authority would be but a poor 
 teacher for a Church that could not err. It may 
 be that Mr. Gladstone does not mean by history, 
 when he uses the term in his Expostulation, the writ- 
 ten testimony of competent witnesses as to facts, but 
 something else, and that not mental science or reason 
 as applicable to spiritual things, but social, or political, 
 or some other science is floating before his mind when 
 he uses the word "scientific." But as he did not con- 
 descend to enlighten us on his meaning, we had nothing 
 for it but to deal with the expressions in their usual 
 
25 
 
 signification, or in the one indicated by the nature of 
 the subject in hand. 
 
 At this place our author brings into his argument 
 the name of Dr. Newman — a name of respect alike 
 with those from whom he has gone out, and those 
 amongst whom he has taken his place — brings it in 
 ungraciously, because uselessly for his purpose. He 
 makes no point by its introduction. It is mentioned 
 indeed complimentarily. Dr. Newman is styled " the 
 first living Theologian now within the Eoman Catholic 
 communion," a matter on which Mr. Gladstone is of 
 course most competent to pronounce an opinion. The 
 compliment becomes very questionable a few pages on, 
 when it is divided with another, a friend of Mr. Glad- 
 stone's. Such as it is, however, it is paid in the pre- 
 sent instance rather for the purpose of strengthening 
 his own position, than to exalt Dr. Newman. 
 
 "' With this censure the proceeding of 1870 has ac- 
 tually been visited by the first living Theologian," &c. 
 Now, "the proceeding of 1870," of which he has been 
 speaking, which " aimed deadly blows at the old, his- 
 toric, &c., school," and which is called "an act of 
 violence,'' is the definition of Papal Infallibility, and 
 was visited with no censure by Dr. Newman, but was, 
 on the contrary, received by him with the docility of 
 a true child of the Church. The words quoted are 
 the words of Dr. Newman, writing his private views 
 in a private letter, not on the question of Papal Infal- 
 libility, which I believe he held ever since he was a 
 Catholic, but on an agitation that was said to be on 
 
26 
 
 foot at the time, to force the discussion of the question 
 upon the Council. To this, and not to the. " proceed- 
 ing of 1870," the passage refers. The date of the 
 Doctor's letter is April 6th — the date of the " proceed- 
 ing" was July 18th. Mr. Gladstone gives us the first 
 — was he possibly ignorant of the second ? 
 
 SECOND PROPOSITION. 
 
 " Rome has refurbished and paraded anew every 
 rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused.'' 
 And we are promised proof Better not to expect too 
 much — our author is not strong at proof Possible 
 contingencies, vague analogies, egoistical views, go a 
 great way towards a conclusion in his system of reason- 
 ing. The " rusty tools" mean the censures which the 
 Church pronounces against men or on doctrines. The 
 designation is a polite one, and of course quite be- 
 coming in the mouth of a Christian gentleman. We 
 shall have a few other equally polite expressions to 
 deal with before we close. 
 
 Meantime the Church of Eome has not refurbished 
 and paraded anew any tools, " rusty' ' or otherwise. The 
 spiritual arms which her Founder empowered her to 
 use against erring subjects, or in the defence of her 
 charge, have, unfortunately, never had time to grow 
 rusty, even if their origin had left them susceptible of 
 decay. Errors in doctrine and immoral teachings are 
 cropping up in every age, alluring away the children of 
 the Church from obedience or from duty, and it be- 
 
27 
 
 comes incumbent on their Mother to be vigilant, to 
 warn, to admonish, to correct, and, if necessary, to 
 punish. The commission to " go and teach all na- 
 tions," is as fully in force to-day as when it was 
 spoken by the Founder of Christianity eighteen hun- 
 dred years ago ; it commands the truth to be pro- 
 claimed as openly in this age as it did in that ; it can 
 no more admit of compromise with error, by silence or 
 by connivance, now than it ^id then, and it has its 
 sanction of spiritual penalties as well now as it had 
 when St. Paul " handed over to Satan" Hymonseus 
 and Alexander, for " shipwreck in faith," and the Co- 
 rinthian for a scandalous violation of Christian mo- 
 rality. Conscious that this commission abides with 
 her, the Church of Eome has never ceased to act up 
 to its requirements, and Mr. Gladstone's " refurbishing 
 and parading anew" of her spiritual arms is nothing 
 more than a piece of empty and insolent rhetoric. 
 
 We arrive now at the proof, or what we have to be 
 content with in place of proof — a list of Eighteen Pro- 
 positions said to be condemned by the Holy See. Mr. 
 Gladstone does not wish " to import passion" into the 
 controversy by citing " the fearfully energetic epithets 
 in which the condemnations are sometimes clothed.'' 
 One cannot help regretting that this spirit of charity 
 and moderation did not attend him through the whole 
 of the Expostulation, and restrain him from using 
 epithets himself which he knows to be most insulting to 
 Catholics. 
 
28 
 
 Before dealing with the Propositions in detail, it 
 will be well to explain to such of our readers as are 
 not skilled in Catholic Theology the manner of pro- 
 ceeding usual with the Holy See in the condemnation 
 of Propositions, and the amount of doctrinal teaching 
 conveyed when a Proposition is condemned. The error 
 with which the Pontiff proposes to deal, if not found 
 expressed neitement by its author, is couched in the 
 briefest and most simple language that can express it, 
 and the sentence or proposition so composed is declared 
 false and hlasphemous, or heretical, or in -whatever 
 other opposition they are judged to be to Chris- 
 tian truth. Every condemned Proposition is declared 
 at least false, and by the fact, its opposite, or, to speak 
 more strictly, its contradictory, is declared true. But 
 this declaration affects the proposition exactly as it 
 stands, with every word carrying its meaning, and 
 every qualifying clause taken into account. The 
 Eighteen Propositions are selected out of eighty that 
 are contained in the Syllabus, and are, we may pre- 
 sume, not taken at random, but are chosen carefully 
 as representative of Catholic teaching. When a trader 
 undertakes to supply a sample of any commodity, he 
 is held bound by the plain laws of honesty to make it 
 such that the quality of the stock from which it is 
 taken may be fairly estimated from it. If he corrupt 
 it to the extent of removing from it something that is 
 found in it, or adding something that is not found, so 
 as to influence the judgment of the purchaser, he ex- 
 poses himself to the penalty of voidance of his contract 
 
29 
 
 and of loss of his character, Mr. Gladstone supplies 
 us with these Eighteen Propositions as samples from 
 which we are to form our opinion of modern Catholic 
 teaching. He can have «no objection, then, to our 
 looking well into them, lest they might have been cor- 
 rupted by addition or omission. His motives or in- 
 tentions in any change or corruption of the Propo- 
 sitions I shall avoid alluding to as much as po!=sible. 
 Sometimes, however, it will be scarcely possible to 
 omit a passing remark. 
 
 So much attention has been drawn to the Syllabus 
 of late, and so many wrong notions about it appear 
 to be in circulation, that before entering on the direct 
 examination of the Eighteen Propositions it may be 
 well to state briefly what is the exact truth about the 
 Syllabus, and what place it holds in Catholic teaching. 
 
 On the 8th December, 1864, His Holiness Pius IX. 
 issued an Encyclical (or circular) Epistle addressed to 
 his "Venerable Brothers, all the Patriarchs, Primates, 
 Archbishops, Bishops,in thefavor and communion of the 
 Apostolic See," in which he refers in general terms to 
 " the principal errors of our time, which he had con- 
 demned in previous Encyclicals, Allocutions, and other 
 Apostolic Letters." He then engages their pastoral 
 solicitude against " other impious opinions, flowing 
 from the same errors as so many fountains," of which 
 he makes mention, and expressly condemns them. 
 His words are : " We, by our Apostolic authority, re- 
 probate, proscribe, and condemn all and every the im- 
 pious opinions and doctrines in these present Letters 
 
30 
 
 commemorated." These are " tlie fearfully energetic 
 epitliets " which Mr. Gladstone would not mention for 
 fear of " importing passion " into the controversy. 
 
 Conjointly with this Encyclical, the Syllabus of 
 eighty Propositions was also issued, but without any 
 special additional sanction. The title is : "A Syllabus 
 containing the principal Errors of our time", which are 
 noted in the Consistorial Allocutions, Encyclical and 
 other Apostolic Letters of our Most Holy Father Pius 
 the Ninth." 
 
 The eighty Propositions are divided into classes 
 under the heads of the different errors they belong 
 to. Thus, the fifst class is headed, " Pantheism, 
 Naturalism, Absolute Eationalism," and five Pro- 
 positions are given. The second is " Moderate 
 Rationalism," comprehended in seven Propositions. 
 The third is Indifferentism ; the fourth. Socialism 
 and Communism ; then Errors concerning the Church, 
 Errors concerning Civil Society, and so on. 
 
 Each Proposition is given in the form in which it 
 asserts the error, without negation or further qualifi- 
 cation of it than that which is contained in the 
 reference to the Papal Allocution or Letter in which 
 it received its condemnation. For instance : the 
 second Proposition, under the head of Pantheism, Na- 
 turalism, &c., is — " All action of God on men or on 
 the universe is to be denied." And no other remark, 
 except the insertion under, it, of " Alloc. Maxima 
 quidem, 9 Junii, 1862." The words are those with 
 which the Allocution commences. 
 
31 
 
 It is now easy to fix the authoritative character of 
 the condemnation of the Propositions of the Syllabus 
 It is for each Proposition exactly that which is found 
 recorded against it in the Letter or Allocution to 
 which we are referred. The- fact of setting them in 
 order, classifying them, issuing them to the Bishops 
 of the Church, together with the Encyclical, is an in- 
 dication of the Pope's wish that they should be 
 attended to by the Bishops, and that the members of 
 their flocks should be warned of their erroneous and 
 dangerous nature wherever it may become necessary 
 to do so ; but it does not impart to them any addi- 
 tional condemnation or qualification. In fine, we are 
 bound to hold about them all that they are false, be- 
 cause it is styled a Syllabus of errors, and because 
 they are declared to have been condemned in Papal 
 Letters or Allocutions. We are bound to hold about 
 each what is taught concerning it in the particular 
 Letter or Allocution to which we are referred, according 
 to the teaching authority of that Letter or Allocution. 
 
 , MR. Gladstone's proof from the eighteen 
 
 PROPOSITIONS. 
 
 I have struck upon a plan for the examination 
 of this proof, which I think ought to be satisfac- 
 tory to all parties, concerned. I propose, as far as is 
 feasible, to give a conspectus of the Propositions as 
 given by Mr. Gladstone, and as given by the Pope, 
 at once, so that the reader may be able to see at a 
 glance' if any and what change has been introduced. 
 I will ask him, then, to read first without the paren- 
 
32 
 
 theses, and lie will have Mr. Gladstone — with the 
 parentheses, and he will have the Pope. 
 
 First, Second, and Third Propositions in one. 
 
 "Those who maintain the (unbridled) liberty of 
 the Press ; the (irresponsible) liberty of conscience 
 and of forms of worship ; the (completely unre- 
 stricted) liberty of speech, are condemned (as holding 
 erroneous opinions greatly detrimental to the Catholic 
 Church, and to the safety of souls.") I feel myself 
 bound only to show that the parentheses left out by 
 Mr. Gladstone were really inserted by the Pope. I 
 leave the rest to the reader. I quote from the text 
 of the Encyclicals given by Mr. Gladstone. Pope 
 Gregory the Sixteenth, and Pope Pius the Ninth are 
 of one mind as to the un-Catholic and dangerous ten- 
 dency of certain theories, to wit : " That liberty of 
 conscience, and of forms of worship, is an inherent 
 right of every man, which ought to be proclaimed by 
 law, and asserted in every well constituted society, 
 and that the most unlimited liberty to manifest and 
 declare openly and publicly, by speech, or through tlie 
 press, or in any other way, any notions they please, 
 independently of all authority, civil or ecclesiastical, 
 is a right existing in every citizen." Set aside this 
 teaching, if you think fit, Mr. Gladstone, but then, for 
 consistency sake, if you are Premier again, abolish all 
 laws against libel, blasphemy, treason ; give a carte 
 blanche to the Mormons, White Quakers, Shakers, 
 Peculiar People ; place restrictions on your police, 
 lest they should in their zeal interfere with the liberty 
 
33 
 
 of the vendors of bad books or immodest pictures ; 
 shorten the hand of your Lord Chamberlain, and 
 allow the theatres of London to vie with, or surpass, 
 the worst stage exhibitions to be seen in the Conti- 
 nental capitals — Vive la Liberie! What could have 
 induced Mr. Gladstone to meddle in this Papal 
 Encyclical at all is not so easy to discover. The 
 teaching is directed against those excesses of liberty 
 only in their relation to the Catholic Church and to 
 the salvation of souls. It declares them greatly 
 detrimental to both. How was he concerned, if 
 Catholic interests were to suffer by them ? — or, could 
 it have been the safety of souls that so aroused his 
 vigilance, and provoked his indignation ? 
 
 Proposition Four condemns those '' who contend that 
 Papal Judgments and Decrees (having for their de- 
 clared object the general good of the Church, and its 
 laws and discipline) may, without sin (and any depar- 
 ture from Catholic profession), be disobeyed or differed 
 from, unless they treat of the rules (dogmas) of faith 
 and morals." 
 
 A dogma is not a rule, but a doctrine of faith. But 
 this is not much. By the omission of the first paren- 
 thesis the Pope would be made to claim unlimited 
 obedience, under pain of sin, even outside the domain 
 of faith and morals. By its insertion this claim is 
 limited to matters affecting the " general good of the 
 Church, its laws and its discipline." By the omission 
 of the second parenthesis the Papal teaching is made 
 to appear to be an instruction addressed to those 
 
34 
 
 without as well as those within the Church. By its 
 insertion it is clearly shown to be intended for the 
 members of the Catholic communion. I do not know 
 on what principle Mr. Gladstone justifies to himself 
 this manner of dealing with the text of the Encycli- 
 cal. We call it, in our theological language, " sup- 
 pressio veri, et suggestio falsi "—suppression of the 
 truth, and suggestion of what is false. And with us 
 its effect is to destroy at once the force of the argu- 
 ment in which it is used, and the character for fair- 
 ness of the persons using it. 
 
 Proposition Five as given by Mr. Gladstone, is such a 
 truncated edition of the Pontiff's words, that I cannot 
 fill them into it in any shape. I must give both Pro- 
 positions in their integrity. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's : — " Those are condemned who 
 assign to tjie State the power of defining the civil 
 rights (jura) and province of the Church." 
 
 The Pope's : — " Those are condemned who assert 
 that the Church is not a real, and perfect, and inde- 
 pendent community, and that she was not furnished 
 by her Divine Founder with permanent rights of her 
 own, but that it belongs to the civil power to define 
 the rights of the Church and the limits of the exer- 
 cise of these rights." 
 
 Is this sheer ignorance on our author's part, or is 
 it something else that one does not wish to name ? 
 Whence did he obtain the interpolated word ^^ civil" ? 
 Not from the text of the Syllabus, for the rights there 
 spoken of are those derived from the Divine Founder of 
 
S5 
 
 the Church. Why did he suppress the other words of 
 the passage which would show that "jura" could not 
 mean " civil rights" 1 Why did he not give the pas- 
 sage in full (it was not so very long), and let his 
 reader understand the nature of the doctrine which 
 the Pope was condemning, namely, that it denied to 
 the Church the organization or the privileges of a 
 perfect society, and left it, with its divine origin and 
 precious charge? a mere puppet in the hands of the 
 State ? 
 
 Proposition Six condemns " Those who hold that 
 Roman Pontiffs and (Ecumenical Councils have trans- 
 gressed the limits of their power and usurped the 
 rights of princes (and erred in matters of faith and 
 morals)." The reader is here instructed in a note 
 that " (Ecumenical means a Roman Council not recog- 
 nised by the rest of the Church." (Ecumenical (see 
 Dictionaries passim) means the inhabited world, and 
 an (Ecumenical Council means a General Council or 
 Council of the Universal Church, with the Pontiff 
 presiding or confirming. Mr. Gladstone may limit 
 the number of them to suit his own views, but let him 
 not corrupt the meaning of the word. He might have 
 said a Council of the Roman Catholic Church, if he 
 did not wish to lead his readers astray. Of the 
 eighteen (Ecumenical Councils enumerated by our 
 writers before the Vatican, four only were Roman 
 Councils, eight were celebrated in the East, the 
 other six in different parts of the Western Church. 
 
 D 
 
36 
 
 • What the Pontiff condemns in the passage under 
 consideration is a sweeping charge made against the 
 Ecdesia docens generally, that it had failed in every 
 respect. The portion of it that attributes to Popes 
 and to Councils the usurpation of the rights of princes 
 is simply denied by Pio Nono, as it is also by many 
 of the most careful investigators of the cases alleged. 
 We shall, probably, have occasion to recur to this sub, 
 ject again. '' 
 
 Proposition Seven is condemned for denying " to the 
 Church all right of employing force." 
 
 With Mr. Gladstone the right to employ force is 
 inalienable from the civil power. But it does not 
 take much reflection to discover that there exists in 
 man a right of this sort, not derived from the civil 
 power, though controllable by it in certain circum- 
 stances. For instance, a man has a right to defend 
 by force his life, his property, in general anything 
 placed under his protection, whenever they are made 
 the objects of an unjust aggression. And this right 
 is from God — the same source from which the trust 
 itself is derived — and not from civil aiithority. This 
 is the right of defence. 
 
 Again, a parent, a guardian, a teacher, in the en- 
 forcing of their directions or instructions, may employ 
 force within the limits prescribed by prudence and 
 humanity. This is the right of correction. 
 
 Both instances will be found applicable to the 
 Church. From a very early date the Church began 
 
37 
 
 to become the possessor of temporal goods. In the 
 fourth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we are told 
 that " as many as were owners of lands or houses 
 sold them, and brought the price of the things they 
 sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles." 
 And in the sixth chapter we have seven Deacons set 
 apart for the care and administration of those tem- 
 poral matters in order that the Apostles may be free 
 for " the ministry of the Word." But, unfortunately, 
 " wherever the body shall be, there shall the eagles 
 be gathered together." Temporal possessions provoke 
 cupidity in those who think that they ought to have 
 them because they might have them, and hence the 
 Church has been, in this matter of temporal trust, 
 exposed at all times to the challenge of the rapacious 
 — a challenge to which there never has been, and 
 never can be, any other reply than the brief but em- 
 phatic " non possumus." St. Lawrence, the Roman 
 Deacon, because he had no other way of saving the 
 Church possessions of which he had charge, distri- 
 buted them to the poor, for whose use, in some form 
 or other, they were mainly intended, and then went 
 cheerfully to his martyrdom of fire. 
 
 St. Lawrence had no way of defending his charge, 
 and was driven to the next best course of conveying 
 it all at once to its destination ; but when defence is 
 practicable, it is not only lawful, but it is a duty for 
 the Church, in the persons of its ministers, in whom 
 the temporal trust is vested, to defend that trust by 
 all modes that would be allowable to lay trustees in 
 
38 
 
 analogous circumstances. I have, for instance, as 
 full a right to defend the small stock of vestments or 
 sacred utensils, that I have charge of for my Church 
 at Monkstown, as any private gentleman has to de- 
 fend his plate or his family jewels, and whatever /orce 
 it is lawful for him to use for such an object, it is 
 lawful for me also to use the same, as far as civil or 
 natural law is concerned. The only restriction on 
 me in the matter comes from my own ecclesiastical 
 code, which will not allow its ordained minister, by 
 himself, to use force to the shedding of blood, in this 
 sort of defence. Ascending in the order of Church 
 ministers, and contemplating a wider extent of tem- 
 poral charge, it is lawful for the Primate of Hungary, 
 or any other Prince Bishop, to defend, for their 
 defined objects, the lands or holdings in his keeping, 
 by all manner of defence that would be allowed to a 
 temporal ruler of equal rank and position, by the 
 laws or usages of the time and of the country. More 
 complete still, and equitable, w.-is the right, and as a 
 consequence of the right, the duty of the Sovereign 
 Pontiff, to defend his temporal possessions in the same 
 way that any other monarch was entitled to defend his. 
 These principles are clear, and according to reason, 
 and must commend themselves to all honest-minded 
 men. The theory of a Churcb, patient and unre- 
 sisting, at the same time that it is a holder of impor- 
 tant temporal trusts which are invaded, is, on the 
 contrary, silly and inappropriate ; but it is paraded 
 abroad at present, as a convenient cover for what is 
 
39 
 
 in great request in these days of ours— a plan of 
 Church robbery made easy. 
 
 In the business of correction, the Church usually 
 proceeds against erring or refractory members by the 
 infliction of spiritual penalties, but there is no reason 
 why she should not proceed by way of force — 1, in 
 countries under her own temporal rule, as in the 
 States of the Church ; 2, in countries subject to 
 other temporal rulers, with their co-operation or 
 consent. It is late now in the Church's history to 
 strip her of her coercitive power. Jure vel injuria, 
 she has been using it from the earliest period. The 
 Fathers think it commenced with the denunciation of 
 death against Ananias and Sapphira as a punishment 
 of their crime. This much at least is plain, that if 
 physical punishment was foreign to the spirit of the 
 Church of Christ, it is highly improbable that it 
 would have been supernaturally interposed at the 
 very first formation of that Church into a community. 
 St. Paul's mode of dealing with those who had made 
 "shipwreck of the faith," and with the erring Co- 
 rinthian, was coercitive to a serious degree, and it was, 
 no doubt, after his or other Apostolic precedent, that 
 the discipline of canonical penances, involving a large 
 amount of physical restraint and punishment, was 
 established. This discipline was the rule of the 
 Church at the time when Mr. Gladstoue allows that 
 all went well with her — the first three or four centuries 
 of her existence — and included as great a person as an 
 Emperor amongst those who were called upon to 
 observe it. 
 
40 
 
 The reader must remember that we are all along deal- 
 ing with the theory, for it is the theory that is spoken of 
 in the condemned Proposition. The particular cases 
 in which physical force is said to have been employed 
 illegitimately must be individually investigated on 
 their own data, but the principles to guide us in the 
 ^investigation have been sufficiently laid down in what 
 has been just said. 
 
 Proposition Eight is condemned for asserting " That 
 (there is another temporal ) power, not inherent in the 
 office of the Episcopate, but granted to it by the civil 
 authority, (which on that account) may be withdrawn 
 from it, at the discretion of that authority." I must 
 call the reader's attention to the corruption of the text 
 and consequent change of sense. The Proposition 
 considered by the Pope asserts that there is a distinct 
 power conferred on the Episcopate by the civil autho- 
 rity. This is exactly what he denies. Mr. Gladstone 
 assumes, as a matter in admission, that there is such 
 a power given to the Episcopate by the civil authority, 
 and then of coarse wonders why the lord that gave; it 
 may not also be the lord to take it way. The objects 
 of Nuitz, the writer condemned by the Pontiff, and of 
 Mr. Gladstone, are one and the same, to place the 
 functions of the Episcopate at the mercy of the State 
 — the power spoken of is the power of the Church 
 over the Sacrament of Matrimony — but the one states 
 his thesis openly to our face before he draws his con- 
 clusion ; the other slurs over the thesis as not dis- 
 
41 
 
 puted, and lays down the conclusion as a matter of 
 course. 
 
 Proposition Nine asserts that "The civil immunity of 
 the Church and its ministers (ecclesiastical persons) 
 depends upon ciirU right," version of Mr. Gladstoue 
 — "had its origin in civil law," version of the Pope, 
 who condemns the teaching as false. Are we to un- 
 derstand that Mr. Gladstone believes " jus civile" to 
 mean "civil right," and that "ortum habuit" is faith- 
 fully translated by the word " depends" ? And if not, 
 what are we to understand ? The word " civil" is not 
 in the original — for what purpose was it introduced, 
 except to make a point with a superficial reader ? It is 
 very easy to get the better of your adversary on our 
 author's principle. Make his defences weak to order, 
 and then demolish them — a most appro[)riate supple- 
 ment to Captain Boabdil's plan for the destruction of 
 an enemy. 
 
 Proposition Ten asserts " That in the conflict of laws, 
 civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail" ; 
 " does prevail" is the Pope's version ; but, " should" 
 or " does," the Pope will not have the Proposition. 
 Did any one expect he would ? There were some 
 rather remarkable civil laws in conflict with the ec- 
 clesiastical, as well as with the divine, in the time of 
 the Roman Emperors ; but that is perhaps too long 
 ago, and those Emperors were pagans. Well, there 
 were some civil laws which Mr. Gladstone agrees to 
 describe as " pettifogging, base, and cruel," in force in 
 
42 
 
 England and in Ireland under English rulers (and they 
 were not pagans) in conflict with the ecclesiastical laws 
 of the Catholic Church in these countries, and will Mr. 
 Gladstone say that they ought to have prevailed ? 
 
 This question of the relative pre-eminence of State 
 and Church laws when in conflict is one about which, 
 with rational men, there is no room for discussion. 
 For those who believe in a God, His laws must prevail 
 over the laws of men — for those who believe in a 
 Church founded by God and commissioned by Him 
 to teach His doctrine unerringly, the laws and ordi- 
 nances of that stable and indefectible institution must 
 be preferred to the shifty laws of ephemeral govern- 
 ments. There is neither reason nor common sense at 
 the bottom of the theory that would subject the laws 
 of God or of His Church to the laws of the State. 
 
 Proposition Eleven in the Expostulation runs thus: — 
 " That any method of instruction of youth solely secu- 
 lar may be approved." Even as stated by Mr. Glad- 
 stone, I think most Christian men of any denomina- 
 tion would object to the opinion. This is not, how- 
 ever, the Proposition condemned by the Pope. What 
 he condemns is the assertion, " that a system of educa- 
 tion of youth, unconnected with Catholic faith, and 
 not under the direction of the Church, and having for 
 its sole, or, at least, primary object, natural philosophy 
 and social science, is deserving of the approbation of 
 Catholics. " I think I may add, nor of Protestants. 
 
 Proposition Twelve isy " That knowledge of things 
 
43 
 
 philosophical (and of morals) and civil (laws also) may 
 and should decline to be guided by Divine and Eccle- 
 siastical authority." " Decline to be guided " is a 
 very free translation of the word in the Syllabus, 
 " declinare," but we will not quarrel over trifles. If 
 the knowledge spoken of " declines to be guided " by 
 the divine law, the ecclesiastical law has no reason to 
 be jealous. The error, which the Pope condemns, as- 
 serts that philosophy and jurisprudence should look 
 away from, make no account of revelation or the 
 teaching of the Church. Does Mr. Gladstone sub- 
 scribe the doctrine ? 
 
 Proposition Thirteen teaches — " That Matrimony is 
 not in its essence a Sacrament," and we are referred to 
 the Syllabus, Proposition sixty-six. What I. find there 
 is, however, something very different. It runs thus : 
 " The Sacrament of Matrimony is only something acces- 
 sory to the contract, and is separable from it. The Sacra- 
 ment itself is nothing more than the nuptial benedic- 
 tion." This is erroneous : what the Church teaches 
 about the " essence" of Matrimony is, that it is a con- 
 tract instituted by God ; that when this contract is 
 entered into between Christians, it is, in addition, a 
 Sacrament in virtue of the institution of Christ, and 
 that the nuptial benediction is only an accompanying 
 ceremony, an appendage of the Sacrament. 
 
 What objection has Mr. Gladstone that we Catholics 
 should look upon Matrimony as a Sacrament, or that 
 we should not repose its essence in the nuptial bene- 
 diction ? St. Paal, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 
44 
 
 calls it a " great Sacrament," one symbolizing Christ's 
 union with His Church. 
 
 Proposition Fourteen lays down, in our author's text, 
 " That marriage not sacramentally (sic) contracted has a 
 binding force." The passage he refers to translates as 
 follows : " The mere civil contract is sufficient to con- 
 stitute real and rightly-styled Matrimony amongst 
 Christians, and it is false to teach that the contract 
 of Matrimony amongst Christians is always a Sacra- 
 ment, or that the contract is made void by excluding 
 the intention of receiving a Sacrament." What the 
 Church teaches by the condemnation of the Proposi- 
 tion is, in the first place, that the mere civil contract 
 is not the genuine Matrimon;^ of Christians — a teach- 
 ing it will be found difficult to set aside with the 
 words of Christ before us : " What God hath united 
 let no man separate." According to this the binding 
 force of the contract comes from God, and man is to 
 have nothing to do with it. This is rather hard upon 
 the civil power. 
 
 Secondly, as she taught in her condemnation of the 
 previous Proposition, the Sacrament and contract must 
 go together, and if one be excluded so is the other. 
 The Sacrament will not be there without the contract, 
 nor the contract without the Sacrament. 
 
 Why does Catholic teaching on this subject so dis- 
 turb Mr. G ladstone ? Possibly from a Statesman's 
 point of view he thinks it would be bettrfr to have 
 Matrimony without this sacramental element mixed 
 up in it, without anything of a sacred character at- 
 
45 
 
 tached to it — a mere coyenant between man and 
 woman, made under State regulations, and determin- 
 able by State authority — and i'rom this point of view 
 it probably would. But the real question is, not what 
 is the calculation of the Statesman, but what is the 
 ordinance of God. If God willed Matrimony to be 
 something more than the sort of contract which men 
 make about a horse or about a farm, if he wished to make 
 it a solemn^ sacred, and indissoluble union, as appeai-s 
 very probable, from the language St. Paul holds, and 
 from the words of Christ, a solemn, sacred, and indis- 
 soluble union it will always remain for Christians, no 
 matter how Statesmen speak, or write, or legislate to 
 the contrary. 
 
 If Mr. Gladstone is so anxious to relieve the State 
 of this embarrassing business of Matrimony, wibh its 
 sacrament annexed to it, he may take a hint even 
 from an adversary, sometimes " jus est et ab hoste do- 
 ceri." Let him begin at the beginning, let him go to 
 the root of the difficulty, let him get Baptism forbidden 
 by the State ; it is this Baptism that makes us Chris- 
 tians, it is it that makes us members of the Church, 
 and fit subjects for the Sacrament of Matrimony. 
 " Prevention is better than cure." Let liim do this, 
 and he will wonderfully strengthen the hand of the 
 State. Sacrament, or sacramental contract, need dis- 
 turb it no longer. But let us be once made by Bap- 
 tism members of that inexorable Church, there is no 
 alternative for us when we marry, but to marry as 
 Christians. 
 
46 
 
 I find a proposition given in this place in the 
 Appendix, which is not noticed in the pamphlet 
 itself : — " The sons of the Catholic Church are of dif- 
 ferent opinions about the compatibility of temporal 
 rule with spiritual."' A proposition as to fact and 
 opinion equally untrue. 
 
 Proposition Fifteen ^with the author is — " That the 
 abolition of the temporal power of the Popedom would 
 be highly advantageous to the Church," As con- 
 demned by the Pope it is — " The abrogation of the 
 civil kingdom which the Apostolic See enjoys, would 
 immensely conduce to the liberty and felicity of the 
 Church." 
 
 How is it that Mr. Gladstone cannot keep to the 
 text ? A brogaiion is the word of the Syllabus — he 
 substitutes abolition. The sense is not the same ; 
 the first may mean the voluntary surrender which 
 was often urged upon Pius IX. ; the second must mean 
 the forcible suppression of the temporal rule of the 
 Pope. And how he loves generalities. " Highly ad- 
 vantageous to the Church" pleases him more than 
 the phrase of the Syllabus — would " immensely con- 
 duce to the liberty and felicity of the Church." It is 
 much more difficult for an adversary to deal with 
 generalities than with definite assertions. 
 
 To speak of the Proposition as it is found in the 
 Syllabus — as far as the experience of four years can 
 enlighten us — 'the " abolition," for Mr. Gladstone had 
 his way, has not contributed much "to the liberty 
 nor to the felicity of the Church." 
 
47 
 
 Proposition Sixteen is condemned, according to the 
 Expostulation, for asserting "That any other religion 
 than the Roman religion may be established by a 
 State." The Proposition I find in the Syllabus is, 
 " It is no longer expedient in this age of ours, that 
 the Catholic religion should be upheld as the State 
 religion, to the exclusion of all others of every 
 kind." 
 
 The condemnation of the Proposition, as worded by 
 Mr. Gladstone, is open to the interpretation that it is 
 the teaching of the Pope, that in any State, even 
 Protestant,, no religion but the Catholic should be 
 established. The censure of the Pope is really 
 directed against the assertion, that the time has 
 passed for upholding the Catholic religion as the 
 State religion, with its implied insult — that though it 
 may have done well enough in former times, it could 
 not pass muster now. 
 
 Proposition Seventeen of Mr. Gladstone, lays down 
 " That in countries called Catholic, the free exercise of 
 other religions may be laudably allowed." The Proposi- 
 tion which the Pope deals with is — ^" That it has been 
 laudably provided in certain Catholic countries, that 
 it should be free for strangers settling amongst them 
 to practice ^M&&/t/, any form of worship peculiar to 
 them." 
 
 Our author is not successful in his translations of 
 the words of Papal documents. " Called Catholic" — 
 nominally Catholic is not the meaning of "Catholici 
 noniinis," but "Catholic," "of the Catholic profes- 
 
48 
 
 Sion." The mistranslation is not of much importance 
 in this place. 
 
 The point of the Proposition on which the condem- 
 nation falls, is its qualifying adverb, "laudably." 
 The Pope does not think it praiseworthy in Catholic 
 Governments to give free permission to all incomers 
 to practice publicly any form of worship they may 
 please to import with them. The reader must not 
 omit to notice what is carefully left out of the Expos- 
 tulation, that there is question of strangers coming 
 into a country, and not of fixed established inhabi- 
 tants ; also that the permission approved of as praise- 
 worthy is quite general and unrestricted. The au- 
 thorities of Amsterdam were of the Pope's way of 
 thinking on this public toleration of every kind of 
 •worship, when they suppressed the Anabaptist Adam- 
 ites in the fifteenth century. The Government of the 
 United States of America has come round to it of late 
 in their dealings with the Mormons. Even England 
 herself is becoming somewhat intolerant in the case of 
 some contemptible religionists that are attracting 
 attention at the moment. 
 
 Proposition Eighteen asserts " That the Eoman 
 PontiflF(can and) ought to come to terms with progress, 
 liberalism, and modern cwJZzVa^wn." For "civilization" 
 read " civil policy," and the version may be allowed to 
 stand. The Pope does not believe that he can adopt 
 the friendly advice here given him. He does not see 
 his way towards coming to terms with undefined 
 theories, pissing under the attractive names of ^^ pro- 
 
49 
 
 gress" and " liberalism." True progress in the cul- 
 tivation of science, in the pursuit of literature, in the 
 organization and civilizing of society, has always had 
 Popes to encourage and to promote it. Genuine li- 
 beralism, the object of which is to secure for men, 
 mentally and socially, the advantages of rational liberty, 
 not of licence, will receive no opposition from the Ca- 
 tholic Church. But against that liberalism, which 
 runs into Bed Kepublicanism throughout France and 
 Italy, into Communism in Paris, into Internationalism 
 in England and in Germany — she has her orders to 
 fight, and she cannot, and she ought not, to. " come to 
 terms with it.'' 
 
 As to modern civil policy, the third member of the 
 Proposition, it is a rather cool request to ask her to 
 come to terms with it, whose main object has been, and 
 is, to depress her in her spiritual capacity, and to an- 
 nihilate her temporal dominion. 
 
 The list of Propositions now closes. Mr. Gladstone 
 thinks it sufficiently extended — so do I — so, I am 
 persuaded, does the reader. Such a number of coun- 
 terfeits out of Eighteen originals ! There is not a 
 single Proposition of them, if we except perhaps the 
 seventh, given by Mr. Gladstone as it was condemned 
 by the Pope. This may be the result of ignorance, for 
 in all theological matters his ignorance is profound — 
 wondrous — in a man of his position and of his preten- 
 sions. But the omissions, and the additions, and the 
 mistranslations, are all so dexterously fitted in to the 
 support of the theory he undertook to defend, that I 
 
50 
 
 will as soon believe that the world in its order and 
 correspondence of parts came out of a fortuitous com- 
 bination of atoms, as that Mr. Gladstone's perversion 
 of the Propositions of the Syllabus came all out of ig- 
 norance. 
 
 We have next three observations on the Proposi- 
 tions already treated of. Firstly, our author is not 
 quite at his ease about his interpretation of them all. 
 "A portion of them may, by the combined aid of 
 favourable construction and vigorous (sic) explana- 
 tion, be brought within bounds." What chance he 
 afforded them of " favourable construction," we have 
 already seen. In his observation, however, he puts 
 aside the proviso altogether. He will admit construc- 
 tion only when it is allowed to be "an open question." 
 What does he mean by having construction " an open 
 question" ? We generally understand an open ques- 
 tion to be one on which intelligent men may hold 
 different views, one which does not contain within its 
 terms the elements of a certain solution. In construc- 
 tion there is no room for open question except in the 
 solitary instance of ambiguous diction. In the Eighteen 
 Propositions adduced, there is no ambiguity of diction 
 as they are found in the Syllabus. We cannot say 
 so much for them after the manipulation of Mr. 
 Gladstone. Indeed they are so rudely hacked in 
 his hands, that one is tempted to believe that the 
 " rusty tools" of which he speaks are his own, not 
 the Pope's. 
 
 The reason for not allowing the Papal condemna- 
 tions the benefit of " favourable construction," which 
 
51 
 
 Mr. Gladstone admits to be " the rigbt general rule 
 in controversies," is stated to be that the Pope, the 
 author of the Propositions, claims to himself " the sole 
 and unlimited power to interpret them in such man- 
 ner and by such rules as he may from time to time 
 think fit." 
 
 In the first place, the Pope is not the author of 
 the Propositions of the Syllabus, but the censor of 
 them. 
 
 In the second place, he does not " claim to himself 
 the sole and unlimited power to interpret them from 
 time to time as he may think Jit" that is, to give them 
 one meaning to-day, another to-morrow, according to 
 his own caprice. The Pope, like any other legislator, 
 is the authoritative interpreter of his own laws or de- 
 crees, but he is not the sole interpreter. The Canonist 
 is the professional interpreter. Neither is he the " un- 
 limited interpreter." He is limited in the same way 
 as any other interpreter of laws, by the natural and 
 usual signification of the words he has used. . 
 
 "Observation the second. — Mr. Gladstone has been 
 evidently disappointed at not finding amongst the 
 teachings of the Syllabus the " reaffirmation of the 
 right to depose sovereigns, release subjects from their 
 allegiance," &c., &c. It puzzles him; but he is not at 
 all satisfied that what he seeks may not be hidden 
 away somewhere. A " hasty perusal " wiU not suffice — 
 those Eoman Pontiffs are so wily — but perseverance 
 and ingenuity, and making " constru'ctionn a open 
 question " can do a great deal, and if they do not 
 
 E 
 
52 
 
 make out tlie thing itself that we are looking for, they 
 must make out something like it, something that maybe 
 taken for it. Behold it, our author exclaims, in the Sixth 
 and Seventh Propositions, not expressed in words but 
 given in substance, thus : The Popes an d Roman Councils 
 have done things of this sort — " deposed sovereigns, re- 
 leased subjects from allegiance, inflicted penalties of 
 life and limb, and liberty and goods." The Syllabus 
 declares that Popes and Roman Councils have not 
 gone " beyond the limits of their power." All those 
 things were, therefore, according to the Syllabus, 
 within the limits of their power. 
 
 This argument, I think, gives the full force of our 
 author's reasoning. Still it only affirms at most the 
 right of the Popes of former times to do what they 
 did — it by no means reaffirms the same right for Popes 
 in the present time. To bring out the latter conclu- 
 sion, he should have interposed another Proposition 
 to this effect — whatever the Popes and Roman Coun- 
 cils did in former times, and in totally difierent cir- 
 cumstances, the Pope claims the right to do now and 
 in present circumstances. Without this there is no 
 " reaffirming " of the obnoxious pretensions. Pio 
 Nono, as we shall see, this moment recognises the fact 
 of a complete change having taken place in the cir- 
 cumstances on which the claim to them rested. He 
 will not supply us with the link necessary to make the 
 reasoning good. When I taught logic four and twenty 
 years ago, Mr. Gladstone's sort of argument, the in- 
 ference, " a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpli- 
 
53 
 
 citer," was looked upon as a fallacy. Can it have 
 ceased to be one since that time, or are there special 
 exemptions allowed in the logic of a Statesman ? 
 
 Mr. Gladstone is here opportunely " reminded of 
 the words of Pope Pius the Ninth on the deposing 
 power." Then the thing is beyond denial — there is 
 such a theory as the deposing power still in existence. 
 And he uses the word right. Then the Pope still 
 claims it. These are the conclusions we are expected 
 to arrive at, not, however, by process of reasoning — 
 that would be too formal, and also may be dangerous 
 to the conclusion— but by a much safer course, that of 
 vague suggestion. Mr. Gladstone italicises the word 
 " right " and the closing words of the passage, and 
 leaves the matter to the reader. I will take the liberty 
 of italicising a few others, and, without a shadow 
 of misgiving, also leave the matter to the reader. 
 
 " There are many errors regarding the Infallibility, 
 but the most malicious of all is that which includes in 
 that dogma the right of deposing sovereigns and de- 
 claring the people no longer bound by the obligation 
 of fidelity. This right has now and again, in critical 
 circumstances, been exercised by the Pontiffs, but it 
 has nothing to do with Papal Infallibility. Its origin 
 was not the Infallibility, but the authority of the Pope. 
 This authority, in accordance with public right, which 
 was then vigorous, and with the acquiescence of all 
 Christian nations who reverenced in the Pope the su- 
 preme judge of the Christian commonwealth, extended 
 so far as to pass judgment, even in civil affairs, on the 
 acts of princes and of nations." 
 
54 
 
 I have adhered to Mr. Gladstone's version, in order 
 to allow him all the advantage that might accrue to 
 him from his own way of putting the expressions of 
 the Pope's address, and how little it makes for him ? 
 The word given as " public right" should be " public 
 law" — " vigorous," should be " in force." But " public 
 right" or "public law," " acquiescence of all Christian 
 nations," " Christian commonwealth," with its recog- 
 nised " Supreme Judge" — those grounds on which 
 Pio Nono explains and vindicates the " extending" 
 of the authority of his predecessors " to civil afiairs," 
 to " the acts of princes and of nations," have long 
 since become things of the past, and are recognised 
 by His Holiness as such. 
 
 Observation third and last. — The teachings of the 
 Syllabus are not " mere opinions of the Pope himself," 
 nor pious beliefs " paternally recommended to the con- 
 sideration of the faithful." No, Mr, Gladstone, but 
 the cordially accepted creed of every son and daughter 
 of the Church, in the sense in which they emanate 
 from the Pope; but you are here again misquoting the 
 Pope. His words do not refer to the Syllabus, but to 
 the Propositions condemned in the particular Encyclical 
 of November, 1864, already spoken of 
 
 The author now passes to the consideration of his 
 Third Proposition, but first gives us a sample of those 
 " fearfully energetic epithets," which he avoided men- 
 tioning a few pages ago, for fear, of. " importing 
 passion into the argument." 
 
55 
 
 THIRD PROPOSITION. 
 
 Here, and henceforward, our author becomes ex- 
 ceedingly verbose, and less than ever argumentative. 
 We are introduced to Dr. Von Dollinger, and we are 
 informed that be " is the most famous and learned 
 living Theologian of the Eoman communion," and 
 this is addressed to Catholics who might be presumed 
 to know their own great men, and did not require to 
 be taught who they are by an alien to their faith and 
 communion. Dr. Von Dollinger, the " greatest 
 living Theologian" of the Catholic Churc^! ! ! The 
 same who presided a few months ago at that attempt 
 to compound an "oUa podrida" of doctrines, when the 
 Low Church Anglican and the High Church Anglican, 
 and the Russian Schismatic, and the Scotch Presby- 
 terian, and the American Evangelical, and the Ger- 
 man Eationalist, threw each his ingredient into the 
 cauldron in which Christianity was being re-cooked, 
 to make it palatable to every taste. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has great sympathy with the Doctor, 
 and admiration for him and some unnamed few others ; 
 but as there is no advance made towards the proof of 
 the Proposition, we cannot dwell on them'any longer — 
 we must pass on. We can afford only a passing 
 remark to " the mighty trumpet of Luther" himself, 
 just to say that we agree with Mr. Gladstone that it 
 is still echoing through the land of Germany. The 
 notes it sent forth in its master's days were those of 
 
56 
 
 overbearing intolerance and bitter persecution of all 
 who did not bow to bis dogmatic supremacy, be they 
 Pope or fellow-Reformers- -Leo X., or Zwingle, or 
 Carlostad, or Calvin. Witb what multiplied rever- 
 berations do we not hear the same notes re-echoing 
 there at present ? 
 
 In following our author throagh this portion of the 
 Expostulation there is a good deal of wading through 
 a watery medium, not always of the clearest, to be 
 done, before we come upon anything of sufficient con- 
 sistency to be dealt with as argument. We have 
 mention of " moral murder," " stifling of canscience 
 or conviction," "fermentation in mind of Latin 
 Church," " possible application of principles of ma- 
 chinery to intellectual and moral processes" — with a 
 slap at the great Hierarchic power for " changing our 
 religion over our heads" — "conviction that multitudes 
 will vindica;te their loyalty at the expense of their 
 consistency" — " friendly challenge and entreaty to 
 Roman Catholics to replace themselves with this na- 
 tion and Parliament in their position of five and forty 
 years ago" — all which Mr. Gladstone has a perfect right 
 to say if it be his humour — but not just now, when he 
 has undertaken to, and is ostensibly engaged in, 
 establishing a charge of a most insulting and de- 
 grading kind against a venerable institution, and all 
 men "who conscientiously attach themselves to it" — a 
 charge which he never should have made unless he had 
 the evidences of it clearly and distinctly before his 
 own mind — and having made it, should place the 
 
57 
 
 same clearly and distinctly before his reader. He 
 told us himself that his " allegations were of great 
 breadth, and as such required broad and deep founda- 
 tions." Is this the way to lay broad and deep founda- 
 tions ? The statement he has made and promised to 
 establish is — " That no one can now become the con- 
 vert of Kome without renouncing his moral and 
 mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and 
 duty at the mercy of another." What has all this 
 palaver to do with the proof of the truth or yerisinii- 
 litude of this monstrous assertion 1 Men whose task 
 it is to supply a certain quantity of printed matter 
 are allowed, by the usage of our times, a considerable 
 latitude in the way of digression, expansion, &c.; 
 but this is no book-making matter ; it is and ought to 
 be regarded as the most important position that the 
 ex-Premier ever undertook to defend — far more im- 
 portant to him in his Christian character ihan Land 
 Bills or Education Bills — a position so aggressive, that 
 if he fails in supporting it, nothing short of the repro- 
 bation of all truly Christian men must await him. 
 He renews the statement of his proposition, having 
 first changed "surrenders" into "forfeits," as a more 
 correct expression, and proposes to place the matter 
 in as clear a light as possible. We cannot hope much 
 from the clear light of Mr. Gladstone. He wants to 
 establish that the Pope's Infallibility was not a matter 
 of Catholic belief forty-five years ago ; that obedience 
 to the Pope did not then trench upon allegiance to 
 the Sovereign ; that Catholics did not then believe in 
 
tlie deposing power of the Pope, " with all its revolt- 
 ing consequences," or hold that they were not bound 
 to keep faith with heretics ; and his way of establishing 
 all these, is to lead us through a lengthy, and, here and 
 there, broken narrative of the precautions taken by 
 British statesmen of fifty to forty years since, before 
 they could be satisfied as to the safety and expediency 
 of repealing certain " pettifogging, base, and cniel 
 laws," up to that time in force against Catholics. He 
 did not need to take all this trouble. We would 
 have granted him all that he wanted for the asking. 
 There was no necessity for making a fuss about the 
 satisfactory nature of the answers obtained for the 
 Select Committee of 1816, 1817, or that of 1824, 
 1825, In all that is substantial in the questions, 
 the same answers would have been obtained in 1874, 
 1875, with the sole exception, that Papal Infallibility, 
 which was at that time only a general opinion with 
 the Church, has since been defined to be a matter of 
 faith. Our author has, however, chosen to go through 
 this long process, and his commenter has only to 
 follow him. 
 
 Through a page or so devoted to what British 
 statesmen feared, or did, or expected, nothing turns 
 up that bears at all on the Proposition we are con- 
 cerned about. There is a polite remark about the 
 ''fangs'' and "claws" of the mediaeval Popedom, an 
 assertion that " the theory which placed every human 
 being, in things spiritual and things temporal^ at the 
 feet of the Roman Pontifi'," was one practically taken 
 
.'J 9 
 
 up and promoted " by brain power never surpassed in 
 the political history of the world," and that it led to the 
 Latin conquest of Constantinople, and the downfall of 
 the Eastern Empire, and the establishment of the 
 Turks in Europe — allegations of such great breadth 
 truly, that one is curious to see their foundations, but 
 is not favoured with a glimpse of them. At length 
 we arrive at some mention of the Infallibility of the 
 Pope and the obedience claimed for him from his flock. 
 The Galilean Church is introduced, with a reference to 
 the " days of its glory and of its intellectual power." Of 
 its glory we have nothing to say-^we do not quite com- 
 prehend the allusion; of its intellectual power, we have 
 never heard before this. In the list of classic Theologians 
 there is not found the name of a single Galilean. As 
 an influential churchman and finished orator, Bossuet 
 occupies some space on that page of French history ; 
 and for his gentleness of spirit, and polished scholarship, 
 and noble docility, Fenelon is a man that his country 
 should be proud of. But neither of them was a name 
 of weight in Catholic schools of Theology. As for the 
 denial of Infallibility, it was quite open to the Galil- 
 eans to deny it at the time, but a sorry face indeed 
 they were able to put on their argument against it. 
 In their other opinion on the independence, or, as they 
 styled it, the liberties of their local Church, they were 
 even more unsuccessful. These were so irreconcilable 
 with the Primacy and Centreship of unity of the So- 
 vereign Pontiff — a doctrine never questioned in the 
 Church — and were so evidently the effusions of a state- 
 
60 
 
 ridden Theology, that when we say they were broached 
 by a portion of the Gallican clergy — thirty-four out of 
 on hundred and thirty bishops, in the year 1682 
 — we give nearly their full history. They were 
 talked about and boasted of from time to time, 
 but never received real Theological defence or 
 support I remember that it was a common 
 exercise of ingenuity with Theological students of 
 thirty years ago to endeavour to reconcile the Gallican 
 liberties with the received doctrine of the Church, 
 in just the same way that in the days of our philosophy 
 we used to harrass our brains about the squaring of 
 the circle and the trisection of an angle. 
 
 We have next the Council of Constance, " showing 
 in act as well as in word, that the Pope's- judgments 
 and the Pope himself were triable by the assembled 
 representatives of the Christian world." How Mr. 
 Gladstone does go on ! In the Council of Constance 
 no Pope's judgment was tried — in the Council of 
 Constance no Pope was tried — but three pretenders to 
 the Papal throne, that had kept the Church in turmoil 
 and confusion for years, had their claims examined, 
 and were, one after another, set aside, and a Pontiff, 
 whose election by the Council itself did not admit of 
 doubt or dispute, was given to Christendom — Martin 
 V. The action of the Council was in perfect harmony 
 with what we have already written on the Constitution 
 of the Church. Christ's commission is always and 
 unceasingly in force — the Ecclesia audiens is never 
 left without an Ecclesia docens. Popes will die 
 
61 
 
 like other men, and in providing for the succession, 
 delays may happen and difficulties may arise, and the 
 election itself may be disputed or may he uncanonical, 
 for the electors are neither impeccable nor infallible — 
 and a good deal of time must then elapse before mis- 
 taltes can be corrected, or disputes adjusted — and mean- 
 time errors and pernicious doctrines may be making 
 havoc amongst the faithful — it then devolves on the 
 Church Teaching to proceed in that form and in that 
 direction in which the Spirit of Truth guides her, until 
 the regular order of things shall be again established. 
 
 The Council of Constance it was that condemned 
 the errors of John Wickliffe, a man thought much of 
 amongst English Protestant writers, because they do 
 not make themselves acquainted with his doctrines ; 
 also John Huss, who taught " that any vassal or sub- 
 ject may lawfully, and even meritoriously, procure 
 the death of a despotic lord, by open violence or by- 
 secret and premeditated plotj even though an oath had 
 to be violated ;" and Jerome of Prague, an eloquent 
 but noisy supporter of Wickliffe and of Huss. John 
 Huss and Jerome of Prague were handed over to the 
 " secular arm," and condemned to be burnt. I wonder 
 at Mr. Gladstone speaking well of Constance. 
 
 From the Council of Constance to the Council of 
 Trent — we are informed that it, " notwithstanding 
 the predominance of Italian and Roman influences — if 
 it had not denied, yet had not affirmed either Propo- 
 position," the Infallibility of the Pope, or the universal 
 obedience claimed for him from his flock. Theimpli- 
 
62 
 
 cation contained in Mr. Gladstone's language is, that 
 neither of these Propositions was taught by the Council 
 of Trent — that it was nearer to teaching their opposite. 
 Has he ever looked into the Canons and Decrees of 
 ' the Council ? He must permit me now to refer him 
 to session xxv. chapter 2 : — " The holy Synod com- 
 mands all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, 
 &c,, that in their first provincial Synod they receive 
 all and every the definitions and statutes of this holy 
 Synod, and that they also promise and profess due 
 obedience to the Supreme Pontiff." 
 
 And again, to session xxv. chapter 21: — "The 
 holy Synod declares that all and every the statutes 
 made in this Sacred Council, were pomade and decreed 
 as not to infringe on, or be thought to infringe on, 
 the authority of the Apostolic See." And the last 
 act of the Council is to commission " the presiding 
 Legates of the Holy See to ask, in the name of the holy 
 Synod from the Eoman Pontiff, the confirmation of all 
 its decrees and definitions." They would hardly have 
 submitted " all their decrees and definitions'^ to an 
 authority which they believed to be fallible. 
 
 " Testimony never to be forgotten," and " declara- 
 tions" having, I presume, an equal claim to immorta- 
 lity, are now adduced to show — what ? As I have 
 already stated, that Catholics were not then bound to 
 believe in the Infallibility of the Pope, that Catholics 
 were bound " to obey the Pope in matters regarding 
 their religious faith," but " their obedience to the law, 
 and allegiance they owe the Sovereign, were complete, 
 
63 
 
 full, and perfect and undivided, inasmuch as they 
 extend to all political, legal, and civil rights of the king 
 and his subjects." And "that the allegiancedue to 
 the king, and the allegiance due to the Pope, are as 
 distinct and divided in their nature as two things 
 possibly can be." 
 
 There was no necessity for having recourse to solemn 
 " Declarations, Pastoral Addresses," or " never to be 
 forgotten testimonies," to extort from us an admission 
 of these principles or facts. In the present hour we 
 freely admit, that before the definition was made in 
 the Vatican Council, it was not necessary to believe 
 in Papal Infallibility ; we admit that a man may, up to 
 that time, be a Catholic, and assert that the Decrees 
 emanating from the Pontiff were not irreformable until 
 the consent of the Church was added to the teaching 
 of the Pope. We admit that it is in religious, and 
 not in civil matters, obedience is due to the Pope; 
 that obedience and allegiance are due to the king, 
 queen, or existing legitimate government ; that the 
 domain commanded by the power of the king is 
 divided and distinct from that commanded by the 
 Pope. Mr. Gladstone did not then need to take so 
 much trouble about the matter, unless he fancied it. 
 The answers just given are those of Dr. Doyle, who, 
 we are told, " more than anyother Prelate represented 
 his Church,'' and are thought by our author to be in 
 violent contrast with the expressed views of a living 
 Prelate, Dr. Manning, the " head," he tells us, " of 
 the Papal Church in England." The contrast is as- 
 
64 
 
 serted at this part of tlie Expostulation, but the 
 Archbishop's words are not given for some pages, and 
 no allusion is then made to the present assertion, so 
 that [think it better, lest we should forget it, and also 
 that we may not keep a quarrel that can be decided 
 on the spot hanging over our heads, to join issue at 
 once. The words of the dead Prelate are still before 
 the reader's eye ; the words of the living Prelate are — 
 " The spiritual power knows with divine certainty the 
 limits of its own jurisdiction^ and it knows, therefore, 
 the limits and the competence of the civil power." 
 And again : , " Any power which is independent, and 
 can alone fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, and 
 can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdictions, is, 
 ipso facto, supreme. The Church of Jesus Christ, 
 within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, 
 is all this " I can see no contradiction between the 
 living and the dead. Both quite agree as to the dis- 
 tinction an.d separateness of the civil and spiritual 
 jurisdictions. Both admit that the object of the spiri- 
 tual is something spiritual. The dead Prelate limits 
 the civil jurisdiction expressly to " political, legal, and 
 civil rights." " But" — Mr. Gladstone may interpose — 
 " he does not claim supremacy for the spiritual juris- 
 diction, as Dr. Manning does. The dead Prelate gives 
 us no views at all on the question ; the living Prelate 
 limits his assertion to " matters of religion and con- 
 science." Men must say Yes and No on the same 
 question in order to contradict one another. 
 
65 
 
 EECAPITTJLATION. 
 
 " Papal Infallibility was most solemnly declared to 
 be a matter on which each man might think as he 
 pleased. The Pope's power to claim obedience was 
 strictly and narrowly limited ; it was expressly denied 
 that he bad any title, direct or indirect, to interfere 
 in civil governtnent. Of the right of the Pope to 
 define the limits which divide civil from the spiritual 
 by his own authority, not one word is said by the 
 Prelates of either country." 
 
 " Since that time all these Propositions have been 
 reversed." It is not pleasant to be obliged to contra- 
 diet Mr. Gladstone so roundly on every issue he 
 raises, but it must be done. " Since that time" not 
 one of these Propositions has been reversed — not even 
 Papal Infallibility. What was a generally received 
 opinion at that time is an universally-believed doc- 
 trine now. If Papal Fallibility had been the doctrine 
 of the Church then, as Papal Infallibility is now, the 
 Proposition would have been reversed. As it is, the 
 Papal Infallibility has only been explained — defined 
 not to require the assent of the Church, tacit or ex- 
 press, for its valid exercise. 
 
 " The Pope's power to claim obedience" was not 
 reversed ; it was not affected in the slightest degree 
 by anything done since the time referred to. We 
 shall have occasion lower down to go into this ques- 
 tion of obedience more fully. 
 
66 
 
 " It was expressly denied that he had any title, 
 direct or indirect, to interfere in civil government." 
 It is not asserted now. No reversion of Proposition. 
 
 " The Prelates said nothing of the right of the 
 Pope to define the limits which divide the civil 
 power from the spiritual. They said nothing — then, 
 of course, there is nothing here to be reversed. They 
 said nothing, because they were not asked the ques- 
 tion. But had they been asked, the answer would and 
 should have been then as it is now — the Pope, in 
 the exercise of his supreme authority, must know the 
 domain over which that authority extends, and, by 
 the fact, has the power and the right of fixing its 
 limits. 
 
 An observation may appropriately be let in here on 
 what our author says of the Prelates or others who 
 gave evidence to the British Grovernment in the Com- 
 missions of 1824, 1825, and of the Catholic body being 
 "bound by them as selected and tjrpical witnesses." 
 There is nothing actually given fii-om their evidence 
 that we should reftise to be boimd by, and, in general, 
 as far as they are exponents of Catholic doctrines, we 
 adopt them ; but if they become on any questions 
 exponents of their own private views, they no longer 
 remain to us in the relation of professional witnesses, 
 and their opinions are exactly of the value that the 
 soundness of judgment and range of erudition of their 
 authors entitle them to. If, for instance, any of them 
 supplied, even in substance, the phrase that Mr. Glad- 
 stone sets down to their credit, when he says that : — 
 
67 
 
 " Answers in abundance were obtained, that in regard 
 to the obnoxious doctrines being obsolete beyond 
 revival, every assurance could be given that did not 
 require the shame of a formal retractation" — we 
 have no share in their sentiment. Or if any of them 
 volunteered a flippant opinion on grave and largely 
 disputed facts of Papal history, for the obvious pur- 
 pose of smoothening matters with his interrogators, 
 he is, perhaps, the type of a clever, and, for the 
 time being, convenient, but not of a Catholic witness. 
 Other observations also, sprinkled here and there 
 through the Expostulation, would call for some com- 
 ment, did time and patience permit; but we must 
 push on. Between Mr. Gladstone and myself very 
 little progress is made, and it is a weary way yet 
 to the conclusion. We have the Infallibility to go 
 into again, but this time fully, and we have to treat of 
 obedience exhaustively. Firstly, however, a duty 
 devolves on the author. He has shown his pity for 
 his quiet-minded, and, indeed, for his lay Roman Catho- 
 lic fellow-countrymen generally. He has expressed in 
 strong language his deep sympathy with Dr. Von Dol- 
 linger and his few courageous adherents. Here is a 
 still wider and more venerable object of his condolence. 
 The Episcopal order of the Latin Church is degraded — 
 a monstrous change in the constitution of that Church 
 has been consummated ! Is proof required? Behold 
 it in " the change, amounting to revolution, of form 
 in the present (the Vatican) Decrees, as compared with 
 other conciliatory (conciliar?) decrees." " The Canons 
 
 F 
 
68 
 
 of the Council of Trent were at least the Canons of a 
 real Council," and the strain in which they are pro- 
 mulgated is this : " Haec sacrosancta, ecumenica, et 
 generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legi- 
 time congregata, in ea presidentibus eisdem trihus 
 Apostolicis Legatis, hortatur, or docet, or statuit, or 
 decernit, and the like." Obiter., it is pleasant to find 
 Mr. Gladstone recognising an (Ecumenical Council as 
 a real one. He has improved since he treated the 
 Sixth Proposition of the Syllabus. 
 
 " Its Canons are — Can ones et decreta Sacrosanct! 
 (Ecumenici concilii Tridentini." 
 
 " But what we have now to do with is, the Consti- 
 tutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi edita in 
 sessione tertia of the Vatican Council. It is not a 
 Constitution made by the Council,but one promulgated 
 in the Council. . . . The humble share of the as- 
 sembled Episcopate in the transaction, {sic) is repre- 
 sented by sacro approbante concilio." 
 
 Poor Episcopate, poor Bishops ! how kindly they 
 take to their degradation ? How faithfully they cling 
 to the Head that has degraded them ? How bravely 
 and how loyally they rally round their Chief, and go 
 with him " into prison and to death ?" How many 
 have deserted him out of the bitter feeling of their 
 degradation ? Mr. Gladstone, you know nothing 
 about us. 
 
 But, the Canones Concilii Tridentini, and the Dog- 
 matica Constitutio de Ecclesia Christi — the Council 
 of Trent and the Vatican Council — what of them ? Is 
 
69 
 
 it fact that the first was a Council of Bishopx, and the 
 second a Council of— the Pope ? Is \tfact that dog- 
 matic decrees were made in the one, and that it was 
 only dogmatic decrees, already made, were announced 
 in the other? Is xtfaci that the Eoec Sacrosanda 
 Synodus decernit of Trent, differs vitally from the 
 docemus et definimus of the Vatican ? Is it fact 
 that the phrase, '■'■ Sacro approbante concilio," is a 
 novelty introduced in the Vatican Council for the 
 degradation of the Episcopate of the Latin Church ? 
 
 I am so weary of contradicting Mr. Gladstone, that 
 I will merely give the reader a little additional infor- 
 mation which Mr. Gladstone has not given, and let 
 him pronounce himself on ihe facts. 
 
 " The'Council of Trent was a Council of Bishops." 
 Yes, but a Council of Bishops who incorporated 
 into every Decree they made the fact, that the three 
 Legates of the Pope were presiding at their delibera- 
 tions and definitions — " Hsec Sacrosancta Synodus in 
 Spiritu Sancto congregata, m ea presidentibus 
 ei'sdem tribus Apostolicis Legatis ;" and not content 
 with this provision for the Papal right, in session 
 XXV. cap. 2 1 , declared all they had done to be depen- 
 dent on the Apostolic See, and referred the entiie 
 question of books and censures to the Pontiff; and in 
 the final session — a continuation of session xxv. — pos- 
 tulated of the Holy Father, through the same three 
 Legates, a confirmation of all that they had decreed 
 and defined. I have alluded to the text of the postu- 
 
70 
 
 lation before, but as it is in place here it may be re- 
 peated in full : — 
 
 " lUustrissimi Domini, Reverendissimique Patres, 
 placet ne vobis ut ad laudem Dei Omnipotentis, huic 
 Sacrse (Ecumenicae Synodo finis imponatur? et om- 
 nium et singulorum, quse tarn sub. fel. rec. Paulo III. 
 et Julio III. quum sub sanctissimo Domino nostro Pio 
 IV. Romanis Pontificibus, in ea decreta et definita 
 sunt, conjirmatio nomine Sanctce hujus Synodi, per 
 Apostolicffi Sedis Legates et Prtesidentes a beatissimo 
 Eomano Pontifice petatur ? Responderunt — Placet." 
 
 The Vatican Council was a Council of the Pope, 
 who incorporated into the first dogmatic constitution 
 published in the Council, and which sets forth the aim 
 and object of the Coun^cil — the fact that the Bishops of 
 the Church were sitting with him and judging. It 
 is important that the words should be given in full : — 
 
 " Nunc autem sedentibus nobiscum et judicantihus 
 universi orbis Episcopis, in banc oecumenicam Syno- 
 dum auctoritate Nostra in Spiritu Sancto congregatis, 
 innixi Dei verbo scripto et tradito, prout ab Ecclesia 
 Catholica sancte custoditum et genuine expositum ac- 
 cepimus ; ex hac Petri Cathedra in conspectu omnium 
 salutarem Christi doctrinam profiteri et declarare con- 
 stituimus, adversis erroribus potestate nobis a Deo 
 tradita, proscriptis atque damnatis." 
 
 The answer to the second question I have put is 
 evident from this text of the Vatican Council, and the 
 one just quoted from the Council of Trent. 
 
71 
 
 Dogmatic Decrees were made in the Council of 
 Trent by the Bishops, dependent on and awaiting the 
 confirmation of the Pope ; Dogmatic Decrees were 
 made in the Vatican Council by the Bishops conjointly 
 with the Pope — " nobiscum judicantibus." 
 
 Dogmatic Decrees were not " edita "«—published — ■ 
 to the Church in the Council of Trent, because as yet 
 they lacked the confirmation of the Pope. Dogmatic 
 Decrees were " edita " — published— in the Council ot 
 the Vatican, because, as the Pope " judged " conjointly 
 with the Bishops, his confirmation was given by the 
 fact. 
 
 The third question, whether the form " Hsec Sacro- 
 sancta Synodus decernit " differs vitally from the 
 " docemus et definimus " of the Vatican is, from the 
 above, easy of solution. The "decernit " of Trent is 
 incomplete and expectant — the " docemus " of the 
 Vatican is complete and definitive. 
 
 The fourth is the great question, and the one on 
 which depend the charges of the degradation of the 
 Episcopate, of the " change amounting to revolution" 
 in the form of the Decrees of Councils, and of the 
 existence in the Church at present of a " spirit of 
 centralization, as fatal to vigorous life in the Church 
 as in the State, and of this spirit having reached its 
 last and furthest point of possible advancement and 
 exaltation." We must look closely into this, espe- 
 cially into the phrase, " Sacro approbante concilio." 
 
 If it involve the degradation of the Episcopate, it 
 certainly would not be admitted by the Theologians of 
 
72 
 
 the " great Galilean Church in the days of its glory." 
 They stood boldly up for the rights of the Bishops, 
 and in opposition to the pretensions of the Popes. 
 And yet positive approbation is something more than 
 tacit assent, and tacit assent which, according to the 
 great Galilean authority, Tournely, meant silence 
 and non-reelamation, was according to them, a suffi- 
 cient share for the universal Episcopate of the Church 
 to have in the ex cathedra definitions of the Pope. 
 Their theory required two elements to an infallible 
 definition, a Papal and an Episcopal, If the teaching 
 commenced with the Bishops, it required the confir- 
 mation of the Pope ; if it commenced with the Pope, 
 it required the assent of the Bishops. But they saw 
 no dijQference in the Infallibility, whichever element 
 was put in motion first. The form, " Sacro appro- 
 bante concilio," would have exactly suited them. In 
 truth, it is a style of definition most respectful to the 
 Galilean theory. 
 
 It is not, then, insulting to the Episcopate. Neither 
 is it a novelty, a " change amounting to revolution." 
 We have more than two words to say on this head. 
 
 Retracing the history of General Councils from 
 Trent, the first met with is the 5th of Lateran, a.d. 
 1512, commenced under Julius II., and completed 
 under Leo X. In it the phrase, " Sacro approbante 
 concilio," is found at the head, or incorporated into 
 every important Decree, whether of Julius or of Leo. 
 This at once disposes of the charge, that it was an 
 innovation of the Vatican Council. In the indulgence 
 
73 
 
 of a reasonable curiosity, we may be allowed to extend 
 our search a little farther back, to the Council of 
 Florence, celebrated under Pope Eugene IV., a.d. 
 1438, Behold, here it turns up again. In the Bull 
 against the pseudo-Council of Basle, promulgated in 
 this Synod, the Pope using, as in the Vatican, what 
 Mr. Gladstone calls '' the ceremonious We," speaks 
 thus, " Hoc sacro approbante concilio renovamus." 
 
 As the Council of Constance, of whicli the Expos- 
 tulation speaks approvingly more than once, precedt-s 
 that of Florence by only twenty-four years, it may as 
 well be examined for the phrase. It cannot occur in 
 the earlier sessions, as those were occupied in getting 
 rid of antipopes, and dealing with certain errors for 
 the suppression of which a demand of urgency was 
 made. But as soon as a real legitimate Pope appears 
 in the Council — Martin V. — sure as fate, the ob- 
 noxious phrase also appears. And what is still more 
 remarkable, the Fathers of Constance had the weak- 
 ness or the meanness to petition this same Pope, made 
 by themselves, to ratify and confirm what they had 
 decreed before his appointment, which he did, but 
 under limitation to matters of faith* Our author 
 must think them sad recreants for so lowering the 
 authority of the Council. 
 
 Could Martin V., for he was a determined asserter 
 of Papal claims, bave been the first to introduce the 
 phrase ? Impossible. Clement V. uses it in the 
 Council of Vienne, a.d. 1311, in his Decree, " De 
 Summa Triuitate et fide Catholica." So does Gregory 
 X. in the Second Council of Lyons, 1274, at which a 
 
74 
 
 temporary restoration of the Greeks to the unity of 
 the Church took place, after they had given up their 
 error about the Holy Ghost, and sung conjointly with 
 the Latins the word "Filioque" in the creed. In the 
 Decree of Faith he has " nos sacro approbanie concilio 
 damnamus et reprobamus omnes qui negare prsesump- 
 serint Spiritum Sanctum a Patre Filioque procedere." 
 The Greeks accepted the phrase as well as the con- 
 demnation of their error. 
 
 In the First Council of Lyons, Innocent IV. pub- 
 lishes the Decrees, " Sacro approbante Concilio," but 
 denounces the Emperor Frederic, " Sacro prsesente 
 concilio." He thus takes upon himself all the responsi- 
 bility of the second act, whilst he makes the Bishops. 
 bis co-operators in the first. In the Fourth of Lateran, 
 under Innocent III., it is " Nos autem sacro et univer- 
 sali approbante concilio credimus et confitemur,"&c. In 
 Lateran III., under Alexander III., the phrase is " Sacri 
 approbatione Concilii." In the Second of Lateran, 
 under Innocent IL, and in the First, under Callistus 
 II., the presiding Pontiff similarly defines and decrees 
 in his own name, with the consent and approbation of 
 the assisting Fathers. 
 
 We are now as far back in the history of the Church 
 as the year of our Lord 1122, and have arrived at 
 the first General or (Ecumenical Council of the West, 
 and we find that the use of the " We of Royal decla- 
 ration," and of the phrase " with the approbation of 
 the Sacred Council," which were brought forward by 
 Mr. Gladstone to prove, by their novelty and their 
 innovation iu the Vatican Council, the present de- 
 
70 
 
 graded state of the Latin Episcopate, is the rule, 
 without exception, in every Council in which the Pope 
 presides in person. 
 
 It is really wonderful that Mr. Gladstone did not 
 look or inquire into the usual forms of Conciliary De- 
 crees before he threw his hands up in that extraordi- 
 nary manner over the woes and the downfall of the 
 Latin Episcopate. I presume he knew that the Pope 
 presided at the Vatican Council in person ; he cer- 
 tainly knew, for he gives the text himself, that he 
 presided at Trent by his three Legates, and it ought 
 not require much reflection to conclude that the dif- 
 ference in the character of the Presidents would in- 
 volve a difference in the forms of definition. All 
 Catholics have at all times conceded to the Pope 
 " primas et prsecipuas partes" in the teaching of' the 
 Church ; what then more natural than that he to whom 
 the principal part was admitted to belong, should, 
 when presiding in person, speak in his proper charac- 
 ter ? 
 
 What recklessness of assertion our author indulges 
 in throughout this remarkable production of his ! 
 
 THE QUESTION OF INFALLIBILITT OF THE POPE. 
 
 "Docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esse defi- 
 nimus, Komanum Pontificem, cum ex Cathedra loqui- 
 tur, id est cum omnium Christianorum Pastoris et 
 Doctoris munere fungens, pro suprema sua Apostolica 
 auctoritate, doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab univeisa 
 
76 
 
 Ecclesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam, 
 ipsi in Beato Petro promissam, ea infallibilitate pollere, 
 qua Divinus Eedemptor Ecclesiam suam in definienda 
 doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit : 
 ideoque ejus Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese non 
 aufcem ex consensu Ecclesiae irreformabiles esse." 
 
 Having given the definition, Mr Gladstone proceeds 
 to argue against it after a strange fashion. The Pope 
 had claimed Infallibility, " sacro approbante Concilio," 
 only in the case of his teaching ex cathedra. Mr. 
 Gladstone will have it that the privilege is secured to 
 him in a far more unlimited manner; in fact, that it 
 is left optional with him to bring under its influence 
 anything and everything he pleases. " There are 
 twelve theories," he is told, " bandied to and fro 
 amongst Eoman Theologians," and "the private con-' 
 science" of the Catholic " has no guide to direct him 
 in his choice, except the discarded agency of his pri- 
 vate judgment ;" whilst, on the other hand, the Pope 
 can declare that a matter is ex cathedra " when and 
 as he pleases." 
 
 The plain English of all this is — the Infallibility is 
 a sham, the Pope knows it is a sham, there are no 
 divinely fixed limits to its exercise, it is all in the 
 Pope's own hands, he can do as he wishes with it, he 
 can bring anything he pleases under it, " when and as 
 he pleases." This, forsooth, is an " Expostulation" with 
 Roman Catholics ! 
 
 The twelve theories about the meaning of the words 
 " ex cathedra" have the same foundation in fact 
 
77 
 
 that the " change amounting to revolution" in the form 
 of the Vatican Decrees has been shown to have had. 
 The subject, the object, the matter, and the conditions 
 of ex cathedra teaching are laid down in the definition 
 itself with a fulness and a distinctness that leave no 
 room for theory or opinion about what we are bound 
 to believe. The circumstances under which there is 
 certainty of the presence of infallible teaching sire clear 
 and intelligible to all Catholics. The circumstances 
 under which there is an approximation to certainty 
 are questions for Theologians, and are discussed freely 
 in our schools. These are probably the twelve (or 
 perhaps more) theories that are " bandied about 
 amongst Roman Theologians." For instance, one of 
 them would be^Is the Pope infallible in teaching a 
 particular Church, say the Church of France, in the 
 matter of faith, or is it possible that he could teach 
 error in a Decree directed to it, but not to the Univer- 
 sal Church ? But these scholastic disputes no more 
 affect the defined truth of Papal Infallibility, than the 
 controversy about the manner in which the Sacraments 
 confer grace, interferes with the doctrine that the 
 Sacraments do confer grace. 
 
 There is another meaning, and one implying a dif- 
 ficulty in connexion with this doctrine of infallible ex 
 cathedra teaching, to be taken from the words of the 
 paragraph under consideration, but I do not think it 
 was intended by Mr, Gladstone — it is not in his line. 
 Lest it should have been, it is better to deal with it. 
 
78 
 
 " No one but the Pope can declare ex cathedra 
 what is ex cathedra" he writes, and the meaning 
 that the .words ought to carry is : " There is no one 
 but the Pope can declare infallibly what it is that is 
 infallibly taught." The inconvenient consequence that 
 follows is, that the practical application of Infallibility 
 begins and ends with the Pope. I cannot declare 
 infallibly that a certain doctrine is taught me infal- 
 libly. Of what use, then, is the privilege to me ? 
 How does it reach my faith ? How can I believe 
 what is propounded to me unless I first know infallibly 
 that it has been infallibly propounded ? 
 
 The same style of reasoning applies to inspiration. 
 No one can know by inspiration what is or what is not 
 taught by inspiration except the individual inspired. 
 But the answer is not far off. It is not necessary that 
 it should be known by inspiration — it is sufficient that 
 it be known with certainty that the teaching is in- 
 spired ; and similarly, it is not necessary that the per- 
 son taught should be infallible in his reception of the 
 teaching, as well as that the person teaching should 
 be infallible in his communication of it. It is quite 
 sufficient that he who is taught should know for cer- 
 tain when he is taught infallibly ; faith then comes 
 in and does the rest. This, however, is necessary for 
 the Church in its aggregate form. The universal 
 Church cannot receive false doctrine any more than 
 the Ecclesia docens can impart it. The gates of Hell 
 are never to prevail against Her. 
 
79 
 
 And thus, though as Mr. Gladstone puts it, " no 
 document which the Pope issues shall be valid without 
 a seal, and the seal remains under his own lock and 
 key," we of the Church can always identify the cha- 
 racters which the seal of our Teacher impresses. 
 
 We pass away at length from the Pope's Infallibility, 
 a privilege not, as it is commonly described, personal, 
 but official, not exercisable at the caprice of the indivi- 
 dual Pontiff, but according to the requirements of his 
 office — not an inherent quality of the man, but an 
 assistance from without, from the Spirit of God, 
 which keeps an erring man from actual error, when 
 he is teaching the Church of Christ. " Cum, 
 omnium Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris munere 
 fungens." 
 
 Our author now indulges in one of his usual di- 
 gressions from the subject in hand for the humane 
 purpose of inducing statesmen to withdraw civil 
 protection from Roman Catholics. " A religious 
 society, which delivers volleys of spiritual censures 
 in order to impede the performance of civil duties, 
 does all the mischief that it is in its power to do, and 
 brings into question, in the face of the State, its title 
 to civil protection." What a virus must be at woi-k 
 within when it betrays itself in symptoms such as 
 these ? To such a charge, if it be necessary to reply — 
 for I doubt if one statesman in England would sub- 
 scribe to it — we have only to state before God and 
 men, that we are taught by our Church to obey the 
 civil law and not to impede it-, to fulfil our civil duties 
 
80 
 
 and not to evade them. "We have no other answer to 
 make to Mr. Gladstone's vague and undefined, but mosc 
 injurious calumny on our Church. 
 
 SOMETHING ABOUT MORALS. 
 
 In order to show the comprehensiveness of the 
 Pope's claim under the new definition, Mr, Gladstone 
 puts a question to the Roman Casuists about the 
 extent of the domain of morals. And as, he says, 
 they will not answer hitn — he did not wait long for 
 the answer — he has recourse to Mr. Matthew Arnold, 
 and out of him he teaches us that seventy-five per 
 cent, of what we do, belongs to the department of 
 " conduct." Conduct he proceeds to make nearly co- 
 extensive with morals. Thus seventy-five per cent, 
 of our lives are handed over at once to the Pope — 
 alarming !' Is it not ? " But who will guarantee ua 
 the other fourth ? Certainly not St. Paul, who sa/s, 
 ' whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to 
 the glory of God.' " Mr. Gladstone must pardon me if 
 I observe, en passant, that he might as well have taken 
 the four-fourths from St. Paul, who says " all" and 
 " whatever" and is a somewhat higher authority than 
 Mr. Arnold. Or if he had sincerely sought the 
 opinion of the Eoman Moralists, he would have been 
 informed by them that every deliberate act performed 
 by man is morally good or morally bad. They infer, 
 from certain words of the Master, to the efiect, that 
 man shall have to " account for every idle word he 
 
81 
 
 speaks," the existence of a moral responsibility in all 
 our words, and, by a parity of reason, in all our actions. 
 They agree with Mr. Gladstone that Duty is some- 
 thing in constant attendance on us, the monitor and 
 the moderator of all our actions, not however as he 
 describes it, in the form of a dark shadow dogging our 
 steps, but rather as a " cloud by day, a pillar of fire by 
 night." So that whatever authorities we consult, the 
 same inevitable conclusion awaits us, that the entire 
 of our actions are at once placed under the guidance 
 and control of the Pope. 
 
 But this is not the worst, and I wonder our author 
 overlooked what I am about to add. It is not alone 
 our actions that are thus subjected to this autocrat 
 from whom appeal is not permitted ; our beliefs, all 
 our relations to faith, as well as our relations to 
 morality, are placed in the same degrading servitude, 
 for he is the infallible Teacher of Christian faith as 
 well as of Christian morality. 
 
 After all, why should this disturb Mr. Gladstone ? 
 He ignores the Pope's authority in faith ; he is not 
 then under any obligation to hold it in morals. For 
 us Catholics he need not worry himself; we are "to 
 the manner born;" we are not conscious of any oppres- 
 siveness in the burden that he sees us laden with. It 
 is thus with us. We always believed the Pope to be 
 our supreme guide in faith and morals. Since the 
 Vatican Definition we believe him to be our Supreme 
 and Infallible Guide — this we look upon as a decided 
 improvement in our position. But though we profess 
 
82 
 
 that our morals and our faith are under his Supreme 
 and Infallible Quidance, we do not believe that he can 
 make or unmake either morals or faith. They came 
 to him who held the office first, already made, and they 
 have come down from him through a succession of 
 custodians without flaw or stain to our day, when we 
 find them in the keeping of the Supreme Pontiff Pius, 
 ninth of the name. It is his duty to watch, lest any 
 change be -introduced into those truths of faith and 
 morals that have been previously taught, "Nihil 
 innovetur." It is his duty also to supply additional 
 truths out of the same original deposit, according to 
 the necessities of the faithful, and in his fulfilment of 
 these duties he is not alone. " Not I," says St. Paul, 
 " but the grace of God with me." In brief, we believe 
 that the words of the commission, " Feed my lambs, 
 feed my sheep," have not passed away ; that they have 
 been always and are still in vigour, and that Christ 
 empowers Pio Nono as fully as he empowered Peter to 
 teach men his doctrine, and to keep them up to his 
 code of morals. We are perfectly resigned to have 
 all our actions and all our beliefs handed over to the 
 Pope in this way. We are satisfied with our system ; 
 we are happy in our faith. Indeed you might envy 
 us, Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 ON OBEDIENCE. 
 
 Bad as Infallibility appeared to be, something 
 immensely worse turns up now under the style and 
 
83 
 
 title of obedience. " Infallibility had a reach as wide 
 as it pleased' the Pope, or those who may 'prompt the 
 Pope, to make it." Understand this, you Roman 
 Catholic expostulated. It is all a pretence about Infalli- 
 bility being anything instituted by Christ, and the 
 Pope and those who prompt him are well aware of it. 
 It is all in their own hands ; they can make it reach 
 as far as they please, and there is nothing and nobody 
 to prevent them. How pitilessly does your friend 
 insult you in your faith ! Which do you admire more, 
 the vigour of his audacity or the infirmity of his 
 reasoning ? But let us proceed ; we have had tarryings 
 enough in this wearisome chapter. " The sounding 
 name of Infallibility has fascinated the public mind, 
 and rivetted it on the fourth chapter of the Constitution 
 'de Eeclesia.'" The third chapter, in which the 
 doctrine of obedience is laid down, "has received 
 much less than justice." Obedience is not hampered 
 " by the qualifying condition of ex cathedra," " It 
 renders the Papal judgments unappealable and irre- 
 versible even where they do not present the credentials 
 of Infallibility." It stips the mouth of any man who 
 would "pass judgment upon them." " It has an iron 
 gripe." It demands " conformity in cases in which he 
 admits it to be possible he may be wrong, but finds 
 it intolerable to be told so." 
 
 The reader, who is not a Catholic, takes for granted 
 from these statements — Firstly, that this doctrine of 
 
 obedience was heard of for the first time in the third 
 
 G 
 
84 
 
 chapter of the Constitution "de Eccle&ia' of the Vatican 
 Council. 
 
 Secondly, that all that Mr. Gladstone has said about 
 it above are facts. Let us see — but first let us have 
 the teaching of the third chapter before us. 
 
 " The faithful and pastors of every rite and dignity, 
 individually and collectively, are bound by the duty 
 of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not 
 only in matters relating to faith and morals, but also 
 in those that belong to the discipline and regimen of 
 the Church spread throughout the -world. This is a 
 doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can 
 deviate without danger of faith and of salvation." 
 
 " We also teach and declare that he (the Pope) is 
 the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all 
 causes requiring ecclesiastical examination, recourse 
 can be had to him, and that the judgment of the 
 Apostolic See, whose authority is supreme, can be set 
 aside by no one. Neither is it allowed to any one to 
 pronounce judgment on his judgment." 
 
 I find something very like this same hierarchical 
 subordination and obedience to the Roman Pontiff 
 prescribed in the Council of Trent, Sess. xxv., de, 
 Heformatione, cap. ii. — " The Holy Synod moreover 
 commands all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, 
 Bishops, &c., to promise and profess true obedience to 
 the Eoman Pontiff." " The Pastors of every dignity" 
 are expressly designated here, " Patriarchs, Primates, 
 &c.," and the obligation of "true obedience," is as 
 emphatically laid on them as in the words of the 
 
85 
 
 Vatican. Yet this was a " real Council," and its 
 canons were " the canons of the Sacred (Ecumenical 
 Council of Trent," not " constitutions merely promul- 
 gated in the Council." And lest any one should in^ 
 sinuate that this true obedience was. limited to faith 
 and morals, we hav« only to refer to the passage 
 already cited from Sess. xxv., cap. 2], in which the 
 Fathers of the Council declare that all and every the 
 decrees of the Council, whether regarding the refor- 
 mation of morals or ecclesiastical discipline^ were made 
 in such a way as " that it should be understood that 
 the authority of the Eoman Pontiff in these matters 
 remained a,lways supreme." So much for discipline. 
 In the continuation of the same Sess. xxv. , in the De- 
 cree of the 4th December, it is ordained that the 
 Bishops should report to the Holy See the abuses in 
 the matter of indulgences existing in their respective 
 Churches, in order that the Pope may, " by his au- 
 thority and wisdom decree what would be useful for 
 the universal Church." Again, in Sess. vi., cap. 1, 
 non-residing Bishops, metropolitan or suffragan, are 
 to be denounced to the Roman Pontiff, " who will, in 
 virtue of his supreme authority, inflict punishment on 
 them absent, and provide for their churches, as under 
 God's help he may judge expedient." Right of regi- 
 men and finality of judgment are here most liberally 
 accorded to the Pope by the Holy Synod. 
 
 This idea of obedience to the Pope in discipline, 
 and in Church regimen or administration, is tlierefore 
 uot original in the Vatican Council. The Council of 
 
86 
 
 Trent is quite as " Ultramontane" in its concessions 
 to the Papal prerogatives. But the thing did not 
 begin even at Trent. In the ninth year of the Pon- 
 tifica,te of Eugene IV., a.d. 1439, in the Council of 
 Florence, after several sessions spent in discussion 
 and explanation, a Decree of Union was subscribed 
 by the Greek and Latin Fathers conjointly, in which, 
 amongst many other valuable declarations, we read 
 the following : '* We also define that the Eoman 
 Pontiff has primacy over the entire Church, and that 
 he is the successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostle?, 
 and true Vicar of Christ, and that he is the Head of 
 the Universal Church, and Father and Teacher of all 
 Christians, and that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered 
 to him, in the person of blessed Peter, the full au- 
 thority to feed, to rule, and to govern the Universal 
 Church." 
 
 Not less clear and emphatic are the words subscribed- 
 by the Armenians on their union with the Church 
 effected in the same Council of Florence: — '' Professing 
 as true sons of obedience to obey in all faithfulness 
 the ordinations and commands of <Ae Apostolic See." 
 The importance of these testimonies cannot be over- 
 rated. They show that one of the essential conditions 
 for the admission of the separated Greek and Arme- 
 nian Churches into the unity of the Catholic Church, 
 was the recognition of the duty of submission and 
 obedience to the Eoman Pontiff. If it was a new 
 idea, or if it was anything less than a recognised tra- 
 dition of the Church, it would not have been made a 
 
87 
 
 " conditio sine qua nou" of reconciliation, at so mo- 
 mentous a crisis by the Latins, nor would it have been 
 so promptly accepted by both Greeks and Armenians. 
 
 We might go on piling up testimonies from Councils, 
 from Decrees of Pontiffs, from Canonists, from Theolo- 
 gians, even froQi those of the deepest GuUican dye, to 
 prove that this doctrine of obedience to the Pontiff, as 
 set forth in the Vatican Council, is nothing more than 
 a repetition of what had been always held and taught ; 
 but enough must have been said. And is it not con- 
 tained in the very idea of the Primacy ? For the 
 Primacy of our Pontiff is not a bare post of honour. 
 It means, power, authority, jurisdiction in him, and 
 in the Church universal corresponding subordination. 
 It realises to our minds the image of the Church of 
 Christ placed before us by St. Paul — a living body, 
 presided over by a living Head. 
 
 How, in the name of common sense, did Mr. Glad- 
 stone wander away into this vagary about submission 
 to the Pope in discipline and in ecclesiastical ad- 
 ministration, being a new invention patented by the 
 Vatican Council with some wicked deep design ? Can 
 he be really so nervous as to be liable to mistake 
 living beings for phantoms, his excited imagination 
 filling in gigantic proportions and all the other re- 
 quisites of horror. The probability of the supposition 
 is borne out by more than one passage of the Expos- 
 tulation. In the beginning of Section V. he speaks of 
 the fear of " these peaceful shores being disturbed at 
 the bidding of Eome by foreign foe or domestic treason" 
 
88 
 
 as visionary, but he immediately adds that what ha?, 
 aiccording to him, happened in the renewal of Papal 
 pretensions, is something " more visionary," He would 
 hafve us believe that he has no fear, but the -frorld knows 
 that the greatest coward is usually the man who 
 boasts of not being afraid. Further on, in the same 
 section, he is convinced that " it must be for some 
 political object of a very tangible kind that the risks 
 of so daring a raid upon the civil sphere have been 
 deliberately run." He explains, in the previous 
 sentence, what he intends to convey by the "daring 
 raid." It is the fact of the Court of Eome "lodging 
 formidable demands for power of the vulgar kind." 
 (We have just seen that she has not lodged a single 
 new detfiand for power of any kind — so much for the 
 raid). He is uneasy about the " struggle" (sic) 
 going on in Germany, and he admonishes us that 
 what used to be said of France must now be said of 
 Germany — that "when Germany is disquieted, Europe 
 cannot be at rest." But his particular uneasiness has 
 reference to his pet kingdom of Italy, because Pio 
 NoQO will not shake hands with Victor Emmatiuel 
 over the robbery of his daminions. And what makes 
 this all the more serious is, that " it is possible that We 
 have here" (that is, in the temporal power of the Pope- 
 dom), the key to the enlargement of the province of 
 obedience beyond the limits of Infallibility, and to the 
 introdmtiofi of the remarkable phrase — "a<Z disciplinam 
 et regimen Ecclesice." Eemarkable phfase-^" the dis- 
 cipline and government of th» Church" ! It Wds of 
 
89' 
 
 course introduced in the Vatican — it was never heard 
 of before ! What a painful exhibition of affected 
 ignorance is all this ? What sort of idea of the 
 Catholic Church have you figured to yourself, Mr. 
 Gladstone, when you speak in this fashion ? Do you 
 imagine that before the Vatican Council we had no 
 discipline in our ranks, no recognised right of govern- 
 ment in our Pontiff? 
 
 To sum up : the doctrine of obedience to the Pope 
 in " discipline and the administration of the Church" 
 was not innovated in the Vatican Council. Neither 
 are the other statements made about it correct. 
 
 Firstly — It does not, " render the Papal judgments 
 unappealable and irreversible." The simplest way of 
 disposing of this charge is, to refer at once to those 
 authorities of the thorough Ultramontane type that 
 have treated the question, and take their evidence 
 upon it. Cardinal Bellarmine, Jesuit, is not one to be 
 suspected of any tendency to curtail the prerogative 
 of the Roman Pontiff, and he thinks that a Pontifical 
 law, in order to be a binding law, must be " just." 
 "Hence," he says, " if the Pope were to order children, 
 or persons of weak constitution, to fast in Lent as strictly 
 as grown up^ persons, or those of vigorous constitution, 
 his law would be unjust, and not to be observed ; as 
 wotild also be a law confining the appointment to 
 Bishopries to the rich and noble, to the exclusion of 
 the poor and lowly born, although equally or better 
 qualified." "If," he adds, "the law be not only 
 unjust, but opposed to the law of God, you are bound 
 
90 
 
 to violate it ; if, however, it be, though unjust as a law, 
 not opposed to the law of God, you may be indirectly 
 bound to observe it, lest scandal should be given by 
 its violation." — De Romano Pontifice, lib. iv. cap^ 15. 
 Suarez, also a Jesuit and rank Ultramontane, in his 
 "Treatise on Laws," has the following: "Canonical laws 
 bind in conscience, supposing them to be just. But if a 
 canonical law be evidently unjust, it does not bind. . . 
 A canonical law binds particularly when it is not 
 only just but moderate^ and not difficult of fulfilment. 
 The more severe laws, and those more difficult of obser- 
 vance, also bind, if they be strictly just." He then 
 raises the question, whether in the case of those " severe 
 and difficult laws," there lies any right of appeal, or 
 rather remonstrance, and he lays down that in all such 
 canonical laws, even those made by the Pope, it is 
 allowable to interpose a petition against the enforce- 
 ment of the law, and that a remonstrance so made 
 " from reasonable cause, is very expedient and con- 
 formable to sound reason." He further adds, that in 
 the meantime, if the observance of the law be attended 
 with great inconvenience, such as " upsetting an 
 existing state of things, or causing scandal, by a benign 
 interpretation of the Pontiff's will, the law may be 
 looked upon as not for the present in force." 
 
 These two great Theologians did not regard the 
 Pope's decrees, or laws of discipline and administration, 
 as unappealable or irreversible. They would only 
 require the appeal against the law, or petition for its 
 reversion, to be made " secundum ordinem," and from 
 
91 
 
 reasonable causes. It makes nothing against the weight 
 of their authority that they are separated from us by 
 an interval of three centuries or thereabouts ; they 
 still hold foremost rank amongst our classic Theolo- 
 gians. In the search of proof or explanation of 
 Catholic doctrine, we can always have recourse to 
 them, and run through their writings "inoifenso pede." 
 I think we are now fairly entitled to convert Mr. 
 Gladstone's "iron gripe" into a silken bond, and to 
 write " fully disproved" over his two assertions — that 
 no man may pass judgment upon Papal mandates, even 
 " when they do not present the credentials of infalli- 
 bility" — and that the Pope, though " he admits it to be 
 possible that he may be wrong, finds it intolerable to 
 be told so." 
 
 INFERENCES. 
 
 If we now summarily rehearse the points that have 
 been estahlished, we shall find that the definition of 
 Infallibility in the Vatican Council was attended with 
 no deviation from the normal teaching system of the 
 Catholic Church, and that it involved no practical 
 change in the belief of its members. Secondly, that 
 the domain of morals has not been enlarged by the 
 striking down of former boundaries for the extension 
 of Papal power, leaving the good or bad of our actions 
 dependent on the ipse dixit of the Popes, but that it 
 lies still within its ancient enclosure of the divine and 
 natural laws. Thirdly, that neither in the nature 
 
92 
 
 or fhe subject matter of obedience to the Pope has 
 any change', speculative or practical, been introduced, 
 " discipline and regimen" having the same meaning 
 now as they ever had, and falling under his authority 
 now rn the same way they ever did, and no other. 
 
 This being so, we take the liberty to rerflove the 
 word now, the main point of assertion from Mr. Glad- 
 stone's proposition — " no one can now becomei her 
 convert without renouncing his mental and moral 
 freedom, aiid placing his civil loyalty and duty at tb6 
 mercy of another" — and the statement becomes a 
 general charge against the Catholic Church in all times. 
 This I am certain he' did not intend, for it would have 
 been fatal to his real scope, which was to demonstrate 
 that the action of the Vatican Council on the Church 
 was baleful and revolutionary. So that we are at 
 liberty to dismiss this portion of the argument of the 
 Expostulation, if we please. But as this may have 
 the appearance of shirking a difficulty, on the plea 
 that it does not confront us directly,! we shall consider 
 the general question — if it he true that the Roman Ca- 
 tholie faith is irreconcilable with mental and mOral 
 freedom and with the duty of allegiance. 
 
 " Mental and moral freedom" is a showy expression,, 
 and I am sure that a great many readers of Mr. Glad- 
 stone's pamphlet who love fine words, but give them- 
 selves little or no trouble about their meaniilg, have 
 been caught by it. The meaning in the present in- 
 stance admits of many lines of graduation, among, 
 which we have to find out our author's as best we 
 
93 
 
 can. There is, fifst, the " mental and moral freedom" 
 from all law huttian or divine, to think as one pleases, 
 to speak as one pleases, to act as one pleases. This 
 can scarcely be meant, though indeed Mr. Gladstone's 
 strictures on thfe Pope for condemning the first 
 three Propositions of the eighteen given above, ^ould 
 seem to imiply something like it, if we take the 
 Propositions as they stood when they were condemned, 
 not as they staiid after they have been reduced by our 
 author. At all events, this latitude cannot be allowed 
 to Christians, for St, Paul desires " every intellect to 
 be broiight into subjection to Christ," and he has, in 
 his First Epistle to the Corinthians, some notable re- 
 marks on the way in which the Greeks and the Jews 
 exercised their mental freedom about the doctrine of 
 Christ. To the Greeks it was unscientific — in fact, 
 " a folly " ; to the Jews it was a " scandal," whilst iii 
 reality it was the " power of God and the wisdom of 
 God." Mental freedbm thus, from the first, appears 
 to have met with some opposition from Christianity. 
 Neither does moral freedom appear to have it all 
 its own way. The Gnostics and the Maliichseans, the 
 Adamites a few centuries dgd, and the Mormons of 
 the present day, are generally considered to have gone 
 someT?'hat too far. We must allow of some restraint 
 being placed on our ideas and on our desires, if we 
 would not rela/pse into the full freedom of ancient 
 Paganism, like a good many around us. We must 
 accept that resti^aimt, at least, which. Christ' has ex- 
 pressly imposed on those who would have a sftare with 
 
94 
 
 Him. " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 saved ; he that believeth not, shall be condemned." 
 And that which was to be believed was the " Gospel," 
 or, as it is. given in St. Matthew — ^'- All things what- 
 soever I have commanded you." Our mental and 
 moral freedom must put up with this restriction, if we 
 wish to retain our title to the name of Christians. 
 This restriction, if we examine it carefully and con- 
 scientiously, will be found comprehensive to a trouble- 
 some degree. In the first place, there are the pre- 
 cepts of the natural law, of which we are made cog- 
 nizant by the light of reason, and reminded and 
 admonished by conscience at the moment of action. 
 Next come the divine positive precepts, for Christ did 
 'not come to destroy the law but to fulfil," and hence» 
 though the ceremonial law of the Jews was to lose its 
 force and meaning on the establishment and promul- 
 gation of Christianity, the moral law of the Decalogue 
 was to retain its full force and obligatory character 
 under the new dispensation. Thirdly, Christ himself, 
 in the founding of His Church, and in making provision 
 for its perpetuity, made many ordinances, and insti- 
 tuted various rites and observances, to which his fol- 
 lowers are bound to subject and accommodate them- 
 selves. I know there are men who venture to take 
 short cuts through those precepts, and who leave 
 themselves quite at their ease about what they believe; 
 but their theories cannot evacuate the word of Christ, 
 and as He requires His disciples to believe all and 
 to do all that He commanded them, I can see no 
 
95 
 
 sufficient ground for adopting a lower standard of 
 Christian duty. 
 
 There is still another source of restriction of the 
 mental and moral freedom of the Christian arising 
 from the obligation our Lord left us under of " hear- 
 ing the Church," or, as St. Paul has it, of " obeying 
 those placed over us," which, I presume, Mr, Glad- 
 stone acknowledges, but under what limitation I know 
 not. If he accepted it, in the definite sense of subjec- 
 tion to an Infallible Guide, as we do, his mental and 
 moral freedom would have exactly the same range as 
 ours, but as he exercises this freedom beforehand to 
 determine how far he is bound to hear the Church, 
 he secures to himself, but on his own responsibility, a 
 greater latitude in believing what is taught, or comply- 
 ing with what is enjoined, than is allowed to us. To 
 this extent, and no further, does the mental and moral 
 Christian freedom of Mr. Gladstone differ from that 
 of the most observant Roman Catholic. 
 
 Before quitting this question, I must protest against 
 the words he selects to express the consequence of 
 ecclesiastical obedience as held by Eoman Catholics. 
 He first described it as a " surrender" of mental and 
 moral freedom, but as he advanced in his work, he did 
 not think the word sufiBciently strong, and preferred 
 to style it a " forfeiture" of mental and moral freedom. 
 Both designations are inapplicable. That which I 
 either forfeit or surrender passes out of my possession 
 — I lose my control over it. In the first case I am 
 deprived of it by another, and in punishment of a 
 
96 
 
 crime ; in the secand, I deprive myself of it by a 
 voluntary act. When a man becomes a convert to 
 Catholicity he no more jorfeits or surrenders his 
 mental and moral freedom than he does when he 
 changes his doctor or his lawyer. The Pope may be 
 more exacting as to faith and morals than the system 
 he has left, but so also may be the new doctor or 
 lawyer in their peculiar requisitions. An exercise of 
 mental and moral freedom, full, deliberate, and mo- 
 mentous in its object, is gone through in the process 
 of conversion. After conversion, mental and moral 
 freedom is exercised in perseverance in the faith ; for, 
 the convert to Catholicity is not, like the helpless 
 captive chained hand and foot to his prison bench, 
 incapable of escape, but is left to the full freedom of 
 a rational man, to stay or to return. Nothing inter- 
 feres with his mental or moral freedom in the matter^ 
 except the brightness of the light that drew him to 
 the Church, and the joy and the peace he has found 
 within her. In the fulfilment of his duties as a 
 Catholic, he, in common with his brethren in commu- 
 nion, exercises his mental and moral freedom every 
 day, and perhaps every hour; for it is not in the wide 
 fling of licence, the exclusion of all obligation and 
 restraint, that rational liberty most perfectly acts its 
 part, but in the careful balancing of motives, and in 
 the selection of that side to which our better judgment 
 inclines, and it is the triumph of human liberty when 
 this better selection is made, despite of difficulties 
 and temptations from without and weakness within. 
 
97 
 
 In one word, we Catholics do not forfeit our freedom, 
 we do not surrender it, but we submit ourselves in 
 the use of it to an authority higher than we can pre- 
 tend to be, and this for reasons clear and convincing 
 to us. 
 
 ALLKGIANCE. 
 
 The last nut, and as Mr. Gladstone thinks — and 
 indeed as some of those who have written replies to 
 this Expostulation think also — the hardest, is Alle- 
 giance as affected by the Vatican Council through 
 the Decree of Papal Infallibility. I cannot take 
 this view of it. To my judgment the duty of 
 allegiance to the sovereign is as little affected by 
 Papal Infallibility as the duty of honesty to the neigh- 
 bour — perhaps, strictly speaking, less. Allegiance 
 implies two things, a duty and a fact, or rather a duty 
 supposing and resting upon a fact. The duty is a 
 point of morals, and thus within the sphere of the 
 Pope's direction. He inculcates its necessity in the 
 usual way in which all their moral duties are incul- 
 cated on Catholics, through his Bishops, his Parish 
 Priests, and his approved Theological writers. Peaceable 
 subjection to the established rulers, and compliance 
 with the laws under which they live, are taught to be 
 the duty of Christians, and the teaching is ordinarily 
 confirmed by reference to the words of St. Paul : " He 
 that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of 
 God."— Romans, xiii. Popes in our own times have 
 morp than once come out with the full weight of their 
 
98 
 
 authority to denounce theories directed against the 
 moral duty of allegiance — instance the Encyclical 
 Letter," Mirari," of Gregory XVI., 15th August, 1832, 
 in which he declares the right of revolt not admissible, 
 and asserts the " immobilis subjectio in principes," 
 which " the precepts of the Christian religion enforce ;" 
 also the Apostolic Letter of Leo XIL, " Quo graviora," 
 in which secret organizations against the supreme 
 civil authority, as well as those against the Church, 
 are reprobated and subjected to censure, not to men- 
 tion the various declarations of Pius IX. to the same 
 effect. 
 
 The fact, that is, the title or ground on which the 
 duty of allegiance rests, being a purely temporal mat- 
 ter, does not lie within the domain of Papal authority. 
 Given the fact of a legitimate ruler, it belongs to the 
 Pope to teach us our moral obligations to him, but it 
 does not belong to him to teach us who the legitimate 
 ruler is, or even to decide between different claimants, 
 as in Spain at present, with which of them the right 
 is to be found. Such questions as these are determin- 
 able by other authorities, and on principles quite dis- 
 tinct from Ecclesiastical ones at present. This, how- 
 ever, was not always so. There were times when the 
 fact, as well as the duty, was left to the Pope to decide 
 on. But then the decision in the two cases did not 
 come from the same, or the same kind of authority. 
 In one case it came from an authority established by 
 Christ, sacred and permanent — in the other it came 
 from an authority which Christian princes %ud peoples 
 
99 
 
 naturally recognised as a suitable one to be exercised 
 over them by their great spiritual Ruler and common 
 Father. That state of things is now completely changed. 
 The Eoman Pontiff counts his spiritual subjects by 
 millions and millions, but the kings and the rulers of 
 the earth have repudiated him. Is the change for the 
 better or for the worse ? Opinions differ, but one 
 may ask — What Supreme Court of Appeal has been 
 substituted to which kings and peoples may now bring 
 their differences and disputes for quiet arrangement be- 
 fore having recourse to the fearful arbitremeut of war? 
 What chance of escape has a small nationality at pre- 
 sent if a big neighbour wishes to extinguish it, except 
 another big neighbour becomes jealous ? There is no 
 rule of right in these days, save 
 
 " The good old rule, the simple plan, 
 " That they would take who have the power, and they would 
 keep who can." 
 
 The great objection to this old Papal authority in 
 temporals was the subjection and servitude in which 
 kings and princes were said to be placed by it. The 
 extent and the onerous character of this subjection is 
 a question on which writers are immensely divided ; 
 but, at all events, it never reached the degree of 
 cowardly dependence on the will of another in which 
 all the governments of Europe are found at present, 
 when the great German Chancellor appears to hold 
 the balance of power in the hollow of his hand, and it 
 
 H 
 
100 
 
 needs but the sound of his yoice to make peace or 
 war. 
 
 A few practical questions now, and we may close 
 this chapter on Allegiance. The first — Is my alle-- 
 giance, since the Vatican Decree of Infallibility, at the 
 mercy of another ? 
 
 It is q,s much since as before, that is — it is not at all, 
 My allegiance, inasqnjch as it is a moral duty, is, 
 like all my other moral duties, under the guidance 
 of the Pope, as already described, but even in this 
 respect it is not " at his mercy," He must guide me 
 on the fixed ba^is of Christian morals, and, as I have 
 said above, he has no power tQ make or unmake 
 these but only to guard them, to impart them, and, 
 in their doubtful or remote conclusions, to interpret 
 tht^m. 
 
 Second question-— Can the Pope, through the claim 
 lie has on my obedience, interfere with my duty of 
 allegiance ? 
 
 He cannot ; the object of obedience is " the discip- 
 line and regimen of the Church," and is quite removed 
 from the duty pf allegiance. Mr. Gladstone is mis- 
 taken when he brings the obedience which Catholics 
 hold themselves bound by tD the Pope, in proof of the 
 insecurity of their allegiance ; it is not here, but in 
 his capacity pf Teacher of Morals, that allegiance 
 comes under his control q,s far as it does come under 
 it. He makes 9, sinailar mistake in his enumeration 
 of the net-full of facts that are swept into the Pontiff's 
 
101 
 
 hands by the doctrine of obedience. "Marriage, 
 burial, education, prison discipline, blasphemy, poor 
 relief .... vows of celibacy and obedience ;" the 
 right to interfere in these, as is evident from their 
 nature, comes to the Pope, not through the channel of 
 obedience, but through that oi faith and morals. 
 
 Third question^In the impossible hypothesis of the 
 Pope being engaged in a war with England, how 
 would the allegiance of English Catholics be affected ? 
 Should they throw up their allegiance and fight for 
 the Pope, or might they throw- up the Pope and fight 
 with their countrymen ? And how would it be if they 
 were soldiers or sailors ? 
 
 I have no hesitation in replying, that in the case 
 proposed, the simple duty of allegiance is not affected 
 at all. The English Catholic is bound to observe the 
 laws, and to remain subject to the supreme authori- 
 ties of his country, just as he would be in case she 
 was at war, not with the Pope, but with some purely 
 temporal power. The question of taking share in 
 the war is one that depends for its solution on the 
 justice or injustice of the undertaking, more than on 
 the matter of allegiance. If I be a free combatant, I 
 cannot in conscience commit myself to a wrong cause 
 for all the allegiances or love of country in the 
 universe. For non-free combatants, such as soldiers 
 or sailors, the question is attended practically with 
 still less difficulty, for, nolens volens, they must go 
 where they are ordered under penalties too grave 
 
102 
 
 to be despised. But some one will urge — the Pope 
 may issue a mandate enforced by an annexed excom- 
 munication, forbidding all Catholics to engage in the 
 war against him. As we are admitting all extreme 
 hypotheses, we shall admit this also, and reply that 
 the supposed action of the Pope does not change the 
 question materially. His mandate will derive its 
 force from his authoritative declaration of the im- 
 morality of the war, and the censure annexed will 
 have to be subjected to the ordinary rules and prin- 
 ciples of ecclesiastical punishments. For instance, the 
 soldiers and sailors would not incur it, 'because grave 
 fear excuses from censure, censures being directed 
 against the contumacious, not against those who act 
 through fear or coercion. Catholic Theology is truly 
 liberal in its views on practical questions of this kind, 
 in which clashing interests are involved, or peculiar 
 individual difficulties arise in the fulfilment of a pre- 
 cept. It is a trite principle with it, that mere eccle- 
 siastical laws do not bind when there would be a very 
 grave inconvenience in their observance, and it denies, 
 as a rule, to any human legislator the power of making 
 laws or precepts, binding men to the performance of 
 actions, which, from the danger and difficulty 
 attendant on their fulfilment, are esteemed heroic. 
 
 We may make and solve cases of this kind to the 
 end of the chapter, but we shall not find ourselves 
 nearer to the solution of the difficulty about Catholics 
 and their allegiance, as it exists in Mr. Gladstone's 
 
103 
 
 mind. It is not allegiance in its ordinary acceptation 
 that he demands of us, but obedience, complete, total, 
 and absolute. It is not in its own sphere alone, but 
 in the spiritual sphere also, that he asserts the supre- 
 macy of the civil power. The words of Christ — " My 
 kingdom is not of this world" — supply his great argu- 
 ment, but he should remember, that texts of Sacred 
 Scripture are sometimes, like double-edged swords, 
 cutting in both directions. If it be good reasoning, 
 that because " Christ's kingdom is not of this world," 
 it should not interfere with this world — it is equally 
 good, that because " Christ's kingdom is not of this 
 world," this world should not interfere with it. What 
 he says about whole multitudes of facts being swept 
 into the Papal net by the doctrine of obedience, 
 " mutato nomine," is true of himself and the State. 
 For him, there is no power, no right, no authority, 
 except in the State or from the State. The State is 
 great, and Mr. Gladstone is its prophet. 
 
 In his practical reflexions on this supposed instabi- 
 lity of the allegiance of converts to Roman Catholicism, 
 our author finds great consolation from the fact, " that 
 the conquests have been chiefly amongst women." As 
 far as this means a sneer, I have nothing to say to it ; 
 as far as it means a point, I have just this to say — 
 when Christ was making converts Himself, the firmest, 
 the most unselfish, the most faithful to Him were 
 women. When He hung upon" His Cross, and the men 
 all deserted Him, it is a Mary, and a Mary, and a 
 
104 
 
 Mary tHat are recorded to have remained beside Him 
 to the end, and it was a Mary, and a Mary, that kept 
 guard at His sepulchre. 
 
 Very little more remains to be commented on. I 
 cannot prevent Mr. Gladstone from calling the Curia 
 Romana " a baleful power," or from having a fling 
 at the Jesuits, " the deadliest foes that mental and 
 moral liberty have ever known " — a rather new 
 charge against them ; they are generally described by 
 their enemies as too facile and accommodating in their 
 doctrines. But as long as he deals merely in abuse, 
 and does not misrepresent the teaching or the system 
 of our Church, we can aflEbrd to let him pass. Towards 
 the close of the Expostulation something turns up 
 about the opposition of the Irish Bishops to his scheme 
 of University Education, which, some people think, 
 gives us the key to the whole proceeding of Mr. 
 Gladstone. It is the postscript to his letter. Had 
 things gone differently, had the Bill received the 
 sanction in place of the unanimous reprobation of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church in Ireland, it is believed 
 that our politico-theological literature would never 
 have been enriched by the present controversy, and 
 the mental and moral freedom and civil allegiance, 
 even of converts, would have been as little source of 
 fear or annoyance to him as they had beefi from July 
 18th, 1870 — the date of the Vatican Definition— to 
 February, 1873 — the date of the' proposal of his Uni- 
 versity Bill. The disappointment he met with on that 
 
105 
 
 occasion is said to have utterly changed him — to 
 halve soured his nature at its very sources. But 
 Surely this is no reason why the Pope, and the 
 Church tJniversal, and the Syllabus, and the Vatican 
 Council, and lady conyerts, should he borne upon so 
 unmercifully. His aversion to the Pope shows itself 
 plainly enough in the course of the Expostulation; 
 but as these pages are going to press, an article 
 appears in the Quarterly, W. E. Gladstone, M.P., 
 auctore, in which the Holy Father is spoken of in a 
 manner transgressing all bounds of propriety. 
 
 The occasiofi of this new attack is the publication of 
 a collection of brief Addresses or Discourses, spoken by 
 the Pontiff to various little knots of visitors to the 
 Vatican from 1870 to 1873, Read with a sympathiz- 
 ing, of even an impartial eye, there is nothing in the 
 volumes to startle' or to offend. The Holy Father 
 throughout speaks in the spirit of his sacred office. 
 He commends his children for their faithfulness ; he 
 6,dverts now and then to the wrongs that he, and the 
 Church through him, have been made to suffer ; he 
 reprehends the acts of injustice of which he is the 
 victim, and their authors; but at the same time that 
 he repl-obates the crime, he prays fervently that God 
 may change the heart of thecriitiirtal. His language 
 is, d,s becomes the" Vicar of Chfist, not the language 
 6f Worldly wisdom, nor are his views the suggestions 
 of human prudence, but Words and thoughts spring 
 together from the same soufce, the deep and ever- 
 
106 
 
 present consciousness of his Divine commission. Mr. 
 Gladstone cannot, for he will not, see the Pope in this 
 light. His fundamental view is, that the Pope has 
 suiFered nothing, has lost nothing, has had no treacher- 
 ous dealings to complain of, no promises solemnly m&de 
 to him shamefully broken, has witnessed no imprison- 
 ment of Bishops, no desecration of holy places, no 
 plunder of properties set apart by their original owners 
 for charitable and religions purposes, has never heard 
 the angry murmurs of the reduci in the square of St. 
 Peter's, nor the shouts — " a basso il Papa," " morte 
 a'l Papa," " morte ai preti," and — one trembles to write 
 it — " morte a Gesu Christo" ! ! Nor the chanting of 
 the infernal litany : " Pius is Pope" — refrain — " Pius 
 
 be d d !" " Gregory was Pope" — " Gregory be 
 
 d d !" " Simon Peter was Pope"—" Simon Peter 
 
 be d d !" " Jesus Christ was the first Pope" ! 
 
 Whoever would authenticate the fact of these frightful 
 excesses of impiety, can do so by referring to page 
 368 of a work published in Paris — Librairie de Victor 
 Palme, 25, Eue de Grenelle, Saint Germain, 1874, 
 entitled — Histoire de I'Invasion des Etats Pontificaux 
 et du Siege de Rome — Par le Comte de Beaufort. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has the peculiar property of stripping 
 certain inconvenient facts of their reality, and ap- 
 propriating the pilfered attribute to beings of his own 
 imagination for the purpose of making his theory 
 run smoothly. "With him the Pope's sufferings are 
 all imaginary, self-indulged — on the contrary, the 
 
107 
 
 Italian Government is patient, tolerant, self-sacrificing, 
 " making over with a lavish prodigality the ecclesias- 
 tical powers and privileges of the monarchy (sic) . . . 
 to the Papal chair!" The friends of the Pope are a 
 baleful set, whose " fixed purpose is to re-erect the 
 terrestrial throne of the Popedom, even if it can 
 only be re-erected on the ashes of the city, and amidst 
 the whitening bones of its people." On the other hand, 
 the enemies of the^Pope, the senders forth of the im- 
 pious and murderous shouts just recorded, the dis- 
 ciples of the apostle of assassination, are not to have a 
 word said against them, nor even a prayer asked for 
 their conversion, lest it should be calculated to hurt 
 their feelings. Everything, according to him, went 
 wrong in Eome under the Pope's administration ; 
 everything goes right now, even to an improvement 
 in the morals of the inhabitants ! The latter is vouched 
 for by some source of information thought to be re- 
 liable by Mr. Gladstone, and also by some tabulated 
 figures. We know enough of Italian statesmens' 
 veracity, and of Mr. Gladstone's accuracy of quotation 
 by this time, to pay much attention to either. The 
 print and picture shops on the Corso, and 'the sale 
 dansante in various parts of the city, tell a different 
 tale of Roman morality at present. 
 
 The Pope has not the same facility as our 
 author for annihilating or transferring the reality 
 of facts. Error is to him error, and injustice is 
 injustice; he must condemn the one and denounce the 
 
108 
 
 othei* in his Letters, in his Encyclicals, in his Allocu- 
 ticiQS, in his DiscoUfses. " He cannot rilii with the 
 thief, nor be a partaker with adulterers," To him it 
 belongs, and in the first place, " to preach the word 
 in season and out of season," and his use of scriptural 
 language, and his frequent reference to scriptural 
 phrases and incidents, are therefore in strict consis- 
 tency with his office. All this is but matter of ridicule 
 to Mr Gladstone, so distorted are his views of every- 
 thing that Pius IX. says or does. The passage, 
 however', to which I will invite the special attention of 
 the reader, and with which I shall close my remarks 
 on the author of the " Expostulation," and of the article 
 in the Quarterly^ is conceived in a spirit much more 
 to be deplored than that of even wanton ridicule. 
 The tone is no longer that of the dissentient Christian, 
 but of the scoffer — the infidel who delights to Wound 
 the sensitiveness of the believer by the irreverent use 
 of words, or profane application of truths, that are to 
 him most sacred. 
 
 " "We had already and often seen Infallibility in 
 full dress --in peacock's plumes," he writes, "but 
 Don Pasquale has taken us behind the scenes. He 
 has shown us Infallibility in the closet, Infallibility in 
 dishabille^ Infallibility able to cut its capers at will, 
 to indulge in its wildest romps with freedom and im- 
 punity." There is nothin'g given by Mr. Gladstone, 
 ffom the " Discourses of Pio Nono"— there is nothing 
 in the Discourses to Warrant the use of language such 
 
109 
 
 as this. " Cutting capers at will, indulging in wildest 
 romps with impunity," are' performances in no possible 
 sense applicable to the aged Pontiff, and are, therefore, 
 applied to him only at the expense of truth. Want 
 of truth is, however, a minor fault in comparison with 
 the gross irreverence and profanity of the words. 
 Men of all shades of Christian belief hold in profound 
 respect the promises of our Lord Jesus Christ, how- 
 ever they may differ in their ideas about the manner 
 of their fulfilment. Here is one of His most magnifi- 
 cent promises, or, to speak more exactly, here is the 
 object of many of His most consoling and comforting 
 promises to His Church, the gift of inerrancy in faith, 
 implying and involving the assistance of the Spirit of 
 Truth, brought in for no other purpose than to be 
 scoffed at — " Behold I am with you all days, even to 
 the consummation of the world." These words of Christ 
 are the ground on which the doctrine of Infallibility 
 rests. The awful, though invisible, presence of the 
 Son of God is the way in which Infallibility is secured. 
 The promise of Christ, and the presence of Christ, 
 make up the idea of Infallibility, and this is, the idea 
 that is mixed up by Mr. Gladstone with "capers," and 
 "wildest romps," and "dishabille," and "peacock's 
 plumes" ! ! f Dr. Newman, in his charity, calls this a . 
 " religious mind" — ^if it ever was such, it must have 
 been " guilty of a violent breach with its own history " 
 before it set to work at its Expostulation, or its 
 article in the Quarterly. 
 
no 
 
 My business with Mr. Gladstone ends here. I have 
 nothing to do with his consideration of the future 
 policy of British Statesmen in relation to Eoman Catho- 
 lics, under the present supposed, doubtful condition of 
 their allegiance. I will only say that if I held his 
 premises, I should feel myself compelled to hold a 
 different conclusion from his. But before ending with 
 my readers, I will crave their attention to a few details 
 which may help them to a better understanding of the 
 now famous Vatican Council. 
 
 The first public announcement of a General Council 
 to be held in the Church of the Vatican was made 
 in June of the year 1867, by Pio Nono himself, to the 
 Bishops then assembled in Eome in great numbers to 
 celebrate the Centenary of St. Peter. The day fixed 
 for the opening of the Council was the 8th of Decem- 
 ber, 1869, in order to allow sufficient time for making 
 the necessary preparations at Rome, and also to enable 
 the Bishops to make provision for a prolonged absence 
 from their Dioceses. All Bishops in communion with 
 the Holy See, and having care of souls, were summoned 
 to the Council' according to ecclesiastical usage. This 
 act constituted the Council (Ecumenical in convocation. 
 The summons was not a mere invitation, which might 
 be accepted or declined ad libitum. Any Bishop wish- 
 ing to be absent from the Council was obliged to send 
 on his grounds for asking an exemption to the " Con- 
 gregation of Excuses and Complaints," and to name a 
 Procurator, to whom, however, no conciliar authority 
 passed. 
 
Ill 
 
 On the assembling of the Council, the business to 
 be gone through was divided between four Congrega- 
 tions, or Deputations, eachCongregation being composed 
 of twenty-four Bishops, presided over by a Cardinal, and 
 having Theologians and Canonists to assist them. From 
 the first announcement of the Council, the Holy Father 
 had invited to Rome, from different parts of the Chris- 
 tian world, men skilled in Theology and Canon Law 
 to confer with the Theologians and Canonists of Eonie 
 itself, and to prepare matter appertaining to the object 
 for which the Council was convoked. Their Schemata, 
 or the forms of Decrees and Canons prepared by them, 
 were submitted to the examination of the Bishops 
 " Integra integre," that is, entirely, bringing with them 
 no kind of Pontifical approbation. They were printed 
 and sent round some days before to each, General Con- 
 gregation, or Session of all the Bishops, that the Fathers 
 might have an opportunity of giving them careful con- 
 sideration, and of forming a mature opinion about the 
 subjects on which they were to be called on for a vote. In 
 this preparatory investigation, the Bishops were allowed 
 to employ the services of consulting Theologians with 
 whom they might examine the matter and the wording 
 of the Schemata, and each Bishop was free to give a 
 dissentient opinion on either matter or wording in 
 the General Congregation ; but for the pui-pose of ob- 
 serving the necessary order of the Council, notice of 
 his intention to speak should be given at least the day 
 before. It is a matter worthy of note, as evincing the 
 
112 
 
 perfect freedom of investigation and of discussion that 
 prevailed, that what between the Bishops and their 
 Theologians, scarcely'a single Schema was allowed to 
 pass in the form and words in which it had been 
 originally drawn up. In several instances not a single 
 word of the form in which it was at first proposed was 
 allowed to remain. 
 
 The proposition of matter lay chiefly with the Con- 
 gregations, but it was by no means confined to them. 
 In the second section of the " Litter» Apostolicse," 
 that prescribes the order and defines the rules to be 
 observed in the Council, the Fathers are not only 
 permitted, but exhorted, if they have any matter to 
 propose that they think conducive to the public good 
 to do so. Thus discussion was free, and proposition of 
 matter for discussion was free— in Theological language, 
 the Council was (Ecumenical in celebration. Indeed, 
 so free was discussion, that the question of the 
 Infallibility of the Pope occupied in all nearly fourteen 
 days, and had about seventy, Fathers during that time 
 pleading for and against its claim to be made the ob- 
 ject of a definition of faith. In the end. Fathers who 
 had entered their names on the list as speakers, seeing 
 that the subject had been abundantly examined, began 
 to withdraw them, and a general feeling that it was 
 time to proceed to definition began to prevail. The 
 discussion then ceased, and the public Session was held 
 on the eighteenth July, when 533 Yoted. placet, or in 
 favour of— -2 only non placet, or against the definition 
 
113 
 
 of Papal Infallibility as a truth of Faith. A number 
 of Bishops, some say eighty, absented themselves from 
 the Council. Many of them had obtained permission 
 to leave, and had actually left Rome between the pre- 
 vious general Congregation and the public Session. 
 But going or remaining, their share in the Council 
 ceased when they abstained from its Session, nor would 
 their presence, with eighty-two non placets in place 
 of two, have made any difference in the issue. The 
 Pope, with a large majority of Bishops, was always 
 held, even in times of the most advanced Gallicanism, 
 tu be u Infallible De finer. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 EEOWKB AlID HOIAH, STEAM PEISTEE3, DHBIIH. 
 
A LETTER 
 
 ADDEESSED TO HIS GRACE 
 
 THE DUKE OF NORFOLK 
 
 ON OCCASION OF 
 
 iMR. GLADSTONE'S EECENT EXPOSTULATION 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN HENRY NEWMAN D.D. 
 
 OF THE ORATORY 
 
 LONDON 
 B N PICKERING 196 PICCADILLY 
 
 1875 
 [all eights eeserved.] 
 
I deeply grieve that Mr. Gladstone has felt it hi^ 
 duty to speak with such extraordinary severity of our 
 Eeligion and of ourselves. I consider he has committed 
 himself to a representation of ecclesiastical documents 
 which will not hold, and to a view of our position in the 
 country which we have neither deserved nor can be patient 
 under. None but the Schola Theologorum is competent to 
 determine the force of Papal and Synodal utterances, and the 
 exact interpretation of them is a work of time. But so 
 much may be safely said of the decrees which have lately been 
 promulgated, and of the faithful who have received them, 
 that Mr. Gladstone's account, both of them and of us, is 
 neither trustworthy nor charitable. 
 
 Yet not a little may be said in explanation of a step, 
 which so many of his admirers and well-wishers deplore. I 
 own to a deep feeling, that Catholics may in good measure 
 thank themselves, and no one else, for having alienated 
 from them so religious a mind. There are those among us, 
 as it must be confessed, who for years past have conducted 
 themselves as if no responsibility attached to wUd words 
 and overbearing deeds ; who have stated truths in the most 
 paradoxical form, and stretched principles till they were 
 close upon snapping ; and who at length, having done their 
 best to set the house on fire, leave to others the task of putting 
 out the flame. The English people are sufiiciently sensitive of 
 the claims of the Pope, without having them, as if in defiance, 
 flourished in their faces. Those claims most certainly I am not 
 going to deny ; 1 have never denied them. I have no 
 intention, now that I have to write upon them, to conceal 
 any part of them. And I uphold them as heartily as I 
 recognize my duty of loyalty to the constitution, the laws, 
 and the government of England. I see no inconsistency 
 in my being at once a good Catholic and a good EngHsh- 
 man. Yet it is one thing to be able to satisfy myself 
 as to my consistency, quite another to satisfy others ; and, 
 undisturbed as I am in my own conscience, I have great 
 difiiculties in the task before me. I have one difliculty 
 to overcome in the present excitement of the public miad 
 against our R^i'^'i^" /^misprl nfirtlv bv the chronic extray^.- 
 
gances of knots of Catholics here and there, partly by the 
 vehement rhetoric which is the occasion of my writing to 
 you. A worse difficulty lies in getting people, as they are 
 commonly found, to put off the modes of speech and lan- 
 guage which are usual with them, and to enter into scien- 
 tific distinctions and traditionary rules of interpretation, 
 which, as being new to them, appear evasive and unnatural. 
 And a third difficulty, as I may call it, is this — that in so 
 very wide a subject, opening so great a variety of questions, 
 and of opinions upon them, while it will be simply neces- 
 sary to take the objections made against us and our faith, 
 one by one, readers may think me trifling with their pati- 
 ence, because they do not find those points first dealt with, on 
 which they lay most stress themselves. 
 
 But I have said enough by way of preface ; and 
 without more delay turn to Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet. 
 
§ 1. Introductoey Remarks. 
 
 The main question which Mr. Gladstone has started I 
 consider to be this : — Can Catholics be trustworthy subjects 
 of the State 1 has not a foreign Power a hold over their 
 consciences such, that it may at anytime be used to the 
 serious perplexity and injury of the civil government under 
 which they live 1 Not that Mr. Gladstone confines him- 
 self to these questions, for he goes out of his way, I am sorry 
 to say, to taunt us with our loss of mental and moral freedom, 
 a vituperation which is not necessary for his purpose at all. 
 He informs us too that we have "repudiated ancient history," 
 and are rejecting " modern thought," and that our Church 
 has been " refurbishing her rusty tools," and has been lately 
 aggravating, and is likely still more to aggravate, our state 
 of bondage. I think it unworthy of Mr. Gladstone's high 
 character thus to have inveighed against us : what intellec- 
 tual manliness is left to us, according to him ? yet his circle 
 of acquaintance is too wide, and his knowledge of his coun- 
 trymen on the other hand too accurate, for him not to know 
 that he is bringing a great amount of odium and bad feel- 
 ing upon excellent men, whose only offence is their religion. 
 The more intense is the prejudice with which we are regarded 
 by whole classes of men, the less is there of generosity in 
 his pouring upon us superfluous reproaches. The graver 
 the charge, which is the direct occasion of his writing against 
 us, the more careful should he be not to prejudice judge 
 and jury to our disadvantage. No rhetoric is needed in 
 England against an unfortunate Catholic at any time ; but 
 so little is Mr. Gladstone conscious of his treatment of us 
 that in one place of his Pamphlet, strange as it may seem, 
 he makes it his boast that he has been careful to " do nothing 
 towards importing passion into what is matter of pure 
 argument " pp. 1 5, 1 6. I venture to think he will one day 
 be sorry for what he .has said. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 
 
 However, we must take things as we find them ; and 
 what I propose to do is this — to put aside, unless it comes 
 ^^ directly in my way, his accusation against us of repudiating 
 ancient history, rejecting modern thought, and renouncing 
 our mental freedom, and to confine myself for the most part 
 to what he principally insists upon, that Catholics, if 
 they act consistently with their prin.ciples, cannot be 
 loyal subjects ; — I shall not, however, omit notice of his 
 attack upon our moral uprightness. 
 
 The occasion and the grounds of Mr. Gladstone's impeach- 
 ment of us, if I understand him, are as follows : — He was 
 alarmed, as a statesman, ten years ago by the Pope's Ency- 
 clical of December 8, and by the Syllabus of Erroneous 
 Propositions which, by the Pope's authority, accompanied 
 its transmission to the bishops. Then came the Definitions 
 of the Vatican Council in 1870, upon the universal juris- 
 diction and doctrinal infallibility of the Pope. And lastly, 
 as the event which turned alarm into indignation, and into 
 the duty of public remonstrance, '' the B,oman Catholic 
 Prelacy of Ireland thought fit to procure the rejection of" the 
 Irish University Bill of February, 1873, "by the direct 
 influence which they exercised over a certain number of Irish 
 Members of Parliament, &c." p. 60. This step on the part 
 of the bishops showed, if I understand him, the new and mis- 
 chievous force which had been acquired at Rome by the late 
 acts there, or at least left him at liberty, by causing his loss 
 of power, to denounce it. " From that time forward the 
 situation was changed," and an opening was made for a 
 " broad political discussion " on the subject of the Catholic re- 
 ligion and its professors, and " a debt to the country had to 
 be disposed of." That debt, if I am right, will be paid, if he 
 can ascertain, on behalf of the country, that there is nothing 
 in the Catholic Religion to hinder its professors from being 
 as loyal as other subjects of the State, and that the See of 
 Rome cannot interfere with their civil duties so as to give 
 the civil power trouble or alarm. The main ground on 
 which he relies for the necessity of some such inquiry is, first, 
 the text of the authoritative documents of 18G4 and 1870 ; 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 next, and still more, the animus which they breathe, and 
 the sustained aggressive spirit which they disclose ; and, 
 thirdly, the daring deed of aggression in 1873, when the. 
 Pope, acting (as it is alleged) upon the Irish Members of 
 Parliament, succeeded in ousting from their seats a ministry 
 who, besides past benefits, were at that very time doing for 
 Irish Catholics, and therefore ousted for doing, a special 
 service. 
 
 Now, it would be preposterous and officious in me to put 
 myself forward as champion for the Venerable Prelacy of 
 Ireland, or to take upon myself the part of advocate and 
 representative of the Holy See. " Non tall auxilio;" in neither 
 character could I come forward without great" presumption ; 
 not the least for this reason, because I cannot know the exact 
 points which are really the gist of the affi:'ont, which Mr. 
 Gladstone conceives he has sustained, whether from the one 
 quarter or from the other ; yet in a question so nearly inte- 
 resting myself as that February bill, which he brought into 
 the House, in great sincerity and kindness, for the benefit of 
 the Catholic University in Ireland, I may be allowed to say 
 thus much — that I, who now have no official relation to the 
 Irish Bishops, and am not in any sense in the counsels of 
 Rome, felt at once, when I first saw the outline of that bill, 
 the greatest astonishment on reading one of its provisions, 
 and a dread which painfully affected me, lest Mr. Gladstone 
 perhaps was acting on an understanding with the Catholic 
 Prelacy. I did not see how in honour they could accept it. 
 It was possible, did the question come over again, to decide 
 in favour of the Queen's Colleges, and to leave the project 
 of a Catholic University alone. 'The Holy See might so 
 have decided in 1847. But at or about that date, three re- 
 scripts had come from Rome in favour of a distinctively 
 Catholic Institution ; a National Council had decided in its 
 favour ; large offers of the Government had been rejected ; 
 great commotions had been caused in the political world, mu- 
 nificent contributions had been made, all on the sole principle 
 that Catholic teaching was to be upheld in the country in- 
 violate, If, then, for the sake of a money grant, or other 
 secular advantage, this ground of principle was deserted, and 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9 
 
 Catholic youths after all were allowed to attend the lectures 
 of men of no religion, or of the Protestant, the contest of 
 thirty years would have been stultified, and the Pope and the 
 Bishops would seem to have been playing a game, while 
 putting forward the plea of conscience and religious duty. 
 J hoped that the clause in the Bill, which gave me such un- 
 easiness, could have been omitted from it ; but, any how, it 
 was an extreme relief to me when the papers announced 
 that the Bishops had expressed their formal dissatisfaction 
 with it. 
 
 They determined to decline a gift laden with such a con- 
 dition, and who can blame them for so doing 1 who can be 
 surprised that they should now do what they did in 1847 1 
 what new move in politics was it, if they so determined ? what 
 was there in it of a factious character ? Is the Catholic Irish 
 interest the only one which is not to be represented in the 
 House of Commons ? Why is not that interest as much a 
 matter of right as any other ? I fear to expose mj' own 
 ignorance of Parliamentary rules and proceedings, but I had 
 supposed that the railway interest, and what is called the 
 publican interest, were very powerful there : in Scotland, too, 
 I believe, a government has a formidable party to deal v/ith ; 
 and, to revert to Ireland, there are the Home-rulers, who have 
 objects in view quite distinct from, or contrary to, those of the 
 Catholic hierarchy. As to the Pope, looking at the surface of 
 things, there is nothing to suggest that he interfered, there 
 was no necessity of interference, on so plain a point ; and, 
 when an act can be sufficiently accounted for without intro- 
 ducing an hypothetical cause, it is bad logic to introduce it. 
 Speaking according to my lights, I altogether disbelieve the 
 interposition of Rome in the matter. In the proceedings 
 which they adopted, the Bishops were only using civil rights, 
 common to all, 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 opportu- 
 nities ? Is there no Exeter Hall interest ? I thought it was a 
 received theory of our Reformed Constitution that Members 
 of Parliament were representatives, and in some sort dele- 
 gates of their constituents, and that the strength of each 
 
10 INTUODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 interest was shown, and the course of the nation determined, 
 by the divisions in the House of Commons. I recollect 
 the " Times " intimating its regret, after one general elec- 
 tion, that there was no English Catholic in the new House, 
 on the ground that every class and party should be repre- 
 sented there. Surely the Catholic religion has not a small 
 party in Ireland ; why then should it not have a corres- 
 ponding number of exponents and defenders- at Westmin- 
 ster ? So clear does this seem to me, that I think there 
 must be some defect in my knowledge of facts to explain 
 Mr. Gladstone's surprise and displeasure at the conduct of 
 the Irish Prelacy in 1873 ; yet I suspect none ; and, if there 
 be none, then his unreasonableness in this instance of Ire- 
 land makes it not unlikely that he is unreasonable also in 
 his judgment of the Encyclical, Syllabus, and Vatican De- 
 crees. 
 
 However, the Bishops, I believe, not only opposed Mr. 
 Gladstone's bill, but, instead of it, they asked for some 
 money grant towards the expenses of their University. If 
 so, their obvious argument was this — that Catholics formed 
 the great majority of the population of Ireland, and it was 
 not fair that the Protestant minority should have all that 
 was bestowed in endowment or otherwise upon Education. 
 To this the reply, I suppose, would be, that it was not Pro- 
 testantism, but liberal education that had the money, and 
 that, if the Bishops chose to give up their own principles 
 and act as Liberals, they might have the benefit of it too. 
 I am not concerned here with these arguments, but I wish 
 to notice the position which the Bishops would occupy in 
 urging such a request : — I must not say that they were 
 Irishmen first and Catholics afterwards, but I do say that in 
 such a demand they spoke not simply as Catholic Bishops, 
 but as the Bishops of a Catholic nation. They did not speak 
 from any promptings of the Encyclical, Syllabus, or Vatican 
 Decrees. They claimed as Irishmen a share in the endow- 
 ments of the cx>untry ; and has not Ireland surely a right to 
 speak in such a matter, and might not her Bishops fairly 
 represent her ? It seems to me a great mistake to think 
 that every thing that is done by the Irish Bishops and clergy 
 
INTKODUCTORY REMARKS. 11 
 
 is done on au ecclesiastical motive ; why not on a national ? 
 but if so, such acts have nothing to do with Rome. I know 
 well what simple firm faith the great body of the Irish 
 people have, and how they put the Catholic Religion before 
 anything else in the world. It is their comfort, their joy, 
 their treasure, their boast, their compensation for a hundred 
 worldly disadvantages ; but who can deny that in politics 
 their conduct at times — nay, more than at times — has had a 
 flavour rather of their nation than of their Church ? Only in 
 the last general election this was said, when they were so earn- 
 est for Home Rule. Why, then, must Mr. Gladstone come 
 down upon the Catholic Religion, because the Irish love 
 dearly the Green Island, and its interests ? Ireland is not 
 the only country in which politics, or patriotism, or party, 
 has been so closely associated with religion in the nation or a 
 class, that it is difficult to say which of the various motive 
 principles was uppermost. " The Puritan," says Macaulay, 
 " prostrated himself in the dust before his Maker, but he set 
 his foot on the neck of his king :" I am not accusing such a 
 man of hypocrisy on account of this ; having great wrongs, 
 as he considered, both in religious and temporal matters, and 
 the authors of these distinct wrongs being the same persons, 
 he did not nicely discriminate between the acts which he 
 did as a patriot and the acts which he did as a Puritan. 
 And so as regards Irishmen, they do not, cannot, distin- 
 guish between their love of Ireland and their love of reli- 
 gion ; their patriotism is religious, and their religion is 
 strongly tinctured with patriotism ; and it is hard to recog- 
 nize the abstract and ideal Ultramontane, pure and simple, 
 in the concrete exhibition of him in flesh and blood as found 
 in the poUing booth or in his chapel. I do not see how the 
 Pope can be made answerable for him in any of his political 
 acts during the last fifty years. 
 
 This leads me to a subject, of which Mr. Gladstone makes 
 a good deal in his Pamphlet. I will say of a great man, whom 
 he quotes, and for whose memory I have a great respect, I 
 mean Bishop Doyle, that there was just a little tinge of 
 patriotism in the way in which, on one occasion, he speaks 
 of the Pope. I dare say -any of us would have done the 
 
12 INTRODtJCTORY EEMAUKS. 
 
 same, in the heat of a great struggle for national liberty, 
 for he said nothing but what was true and honest ; I only 
 mean that the energetic language which he used was 
 not exactly such as would have suited the atmosphere of 
 Eome. He says to Lord Liverpool, " We are taunted with 
 the proceedings of Popes. What, my Lord, have we Catho- 
 lics to do with the proceedings of Popes, or why should we 
 be made accountable for them ?" p. 27. Now, with some pro- 
 ceedings of Popes, we Catholics have very much to do indeed; 
 but, if the context of his words is consulted, I make no 
 doubt it will be found that he was referring to certain pro- 
 ceedings of cerfain Popes, when he said that Catholics had 
 no part of their responsibility. Assuredly there are certain 
 acts of Popes in which no one would like to have part. 
 Then, again, his words require some pious interpretation 
 when he says that " the allegiance due to the king and the 
 allegiance due to the Pope, are as distinct and as divided 
 in their nature as any two things can possibly be," p. 30. 
 Yes, in their nature, in the abstract, but not in the particular 
 case ; for a heathen State might bid me throw incense upon 
 the altar of Jupiter, and the Pope would bid me not to do 
 so, I venture to make the same remark on the Address of 
 the Irish Bishops to their clergy and laity, quoted at p. 31, 
 and on 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 whom I have 
 referred, were aware of any ambiguity either in such state- 
 ments as the above, or in others which were denials of 
 the Pope's infallibility. Indeed, one of them at an earlier 
 date, 1793, Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, had introduced 
 into one of his Pastorals the subject, which Mr. Gladstone 
 considers they so summarily disposed of. The Archbishop 
 says : — " Many Catholics contend that the Pope, when teach- 
 ing the universal Church, as their supreme visible head and 
 pastor, as successor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises 
 of special assistance made to him by Jesus Christ, is in- 
 fallible ; and that his decrees and decisions in that capacity 
 are to be respected as rules of faith, when they are dogma- 
 
INTEODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 
 
 tical or confined to doctrinal points of faith and morals. 
 Others deny this, and require the expressed or tacit acqui- 
 escence of the Church, assembled or dispersed, to stamp in- 
 fallibility on his dogmatical decrees. Until the Church 
 shall decide upon this question of the Schools, either opinion 
 may be adopted by individual Catholics, without any breach 
 of Catholic communion or peace. The Catholics of Ireland 
 have lately declared, that it is not an article of the Catholic 
 faith; nor are they thereby required to believe or profess 
 that the Pope is infallible, without adopting or abjuring 
 either of the recited opinions which are open to discussion, 
 while the Church continues silent about them." The Arch- 
 bishop thus addressed his flock, at the time when he was 
 informing them that the Pope had altered the oath which 
 was taken by the Catholic Bishops. 
 
 As to the language of the Bishops in 1826, we must 
 recollect that at that time the clergy, both of Ireland and 
 EnglandjWere educated in GaUican opinions. They took those 
 opinions for granted, and they thought, if they went so far 
 as to ask themselves the question, that the definition of 
 Papal Infallibility was simply impossible. Even among those 
 at the Vatican Council, who themselves personally believed in 
 it, I believe there were Bishops who, until the actual defini- 
 tion had been passed, thought that such a definition could 
 not be made. Perhaps they would argue that, though the 
 historical evidence was sufficient for their own personal 
 conviction, it was not sufficiently clear of difficulties to 
 make it safe to impose it on Catholics as a dogma. Much 
 more would this be the feeling of the Bishops in 1826. 
 " How," they would ask, " can it ever come to pass that a 
 majority of our order should find it their duty to relinquish 
 their prime prerogative, and to make the Church take the 
 shape of a pure monarchy f They would think its definition 
 as much out of the question^ as that, in twenty-five years after 
 their time, there would be a hierarchy of thirteen Bishops in 
 England, with a Cardinal for Archbishop. 
 
 But, all this while, such modes of thinking were foreign 
 altogether to the minds of the entourage of the Holy See. 
 Mr. Gladstone himself says, and the Duke of Wellington 
 
14 INTRODUCTOEY REMARKS. 
 
 and Sir Robert Peel must have known it as well as he, 
 " The Popes have kept up, with comparatively little inter- 
 mission, for well nigh a thousand years, their claim to dog- 
 matic infallibility," p. 28. Then, if the Pope's claim to infal- 
 libility was so patent a fact, could they ever suppose that 
 he could be brought to admit that it was hopeless to turn 
 that claim into a dogma ? In truth, those ministers were very ■ 
 little interested in that question ; as was said in a Petition 
 or Declaration, signed among others by .Dr. Troy, it was 
 "immaterial in apolitical light;" but, even if they thought it 
 material, or if there were other questions they wanted to 
 ask, why go to Bishop Doyle ? If they wanted to obtain 
 some real information about the probabilities of the future, 
 why did they not go to head-quarters ? Why did they 
 potter about the halls of Universities in this matter of 
 Papal exorbitances, or rely upon the pamphlets or examina- 
 tions of Bishops whom they never asked for their credentials? 
 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 tradition with us the 
 English people, and a great embarrassment to every admi- 
 nistration in their dealirigs with Catholics. I recoUect, 
 years ago. Dr. Griffiths, Vicar Apostolic of the London 
 District, giving me an account of an interview he had with 
 the late Lord Derby, then I suppose Colonial Secretary. I 
 understood him to say that Lord Derby was in perplexity 
 at the time, on some West India matter-, in which Catholics 
 were concerned, because he could not find their responsible 
 representative. He wanted Dr. Griffiths to undertake the 
 office, and e:Xpressed something of disappointment when the 
 Bishop felt obliged to decline it. A chronic malady has from 
 time to time its paroxysms, and the history on which I am 
 now engaged is a serious instance of it I think it is im- 
 possible that the British government could have entered 
 into formal negociations with the Pope, without its transpir- 
 ing in the course of them, and its becoming perfectly clear, 
 that Rome could never be a party to such a pledge as Eng- 
 land wanted^ and that no pledge from Catholics was of any 
 value to which Rome was not a party. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 
 
 But no ; they persisted in an enterprise -which was 
 hopeless in its first principle, for they thought to break the 
 indissoluble tie which bound together the head and the 
 members, — and doubtless Eome felt the insult, though she 
 might thinli it prudent not to notice it. France was not the 
 keystone of the ecumenical power, though her Church was 
 so great and so famous ; nor could the hierarchy of Ireland, 
 in spite of its fidelity to the Catholic faith, give any pledge 
 of the future to the statesmen who required one ; there was 
 but one See, whose word was worth anything in the matter, 
 " that church " (to use the language of the earliest of our Doc- 
 tors) " to which the faithful all round about are bound to 
 have recourse." Yet for three hundred years it has been 
 the official rule with England to ignore the existence of the 
 Pope, and to deal with CathoUcs in England, not as his chil- 
 drcn,but as sectaries of the EomanCatholicpersuasion. Napo- 
 leon said to his envoy, " Treat with the Pope as if he was 
 master of 100,000 men." So clearly did he, from mere 
 worldly sagacity, comprehend the Pope's place in the then 
 state of European affairs, as to say that, " if the Pope had not 
 existed, it would have been well to have created him for that 
 ■ occasion, as the Koman consuls created a dictator in difficult 
 circumstances." (Alison's Hist. ch. 35). But we, in the 
 instance of the greatest, the oldest power in Europe, a 
 Church whose grandeur in past history demanded, one woidd 
 think, some reverence in our treatment of her, the mother of 
 English Christianity, who, whether her subsequent conduct 
 had always been motherly or not, had been a true friend 
 to us in the beginnings of our history, her we have not only 
 renounced, but, to use a familiar word, we have absolutely 
 cut. Time has gone on and we 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. I am entering into no theological question : I am 
 speaking all along of mere decent secular intercourse be- 
 tween England and Rome. A hundred grievances would 
 have been set right on their first uprising, bad there been a 
 frank diplomatic understanding between two great powers ; 
 but, on the contrary, even within the last few weeks, the 
 
16 INTEODUCTOEY REMARKS. 
 
 present Ministry has destroyed any hope of a better state of 
 things by withdrawing from the Vatican the make-shift 
 channel of intercourse which had of late years been per- 
 mitted there. 
 
 The world's politics has its laws ; and such abnormal 
 courses as England has pursued have their Nemesis. An 
 event has taken place which, alas, already makes itself felt 
 in issues, unfortunate for English Catholics certainly, but 
 also, as I think, for our country. A great Council has befin 
 called ; and, as England has for so long a time ignored 
 Rome, Rome, I suppose, it must be said, has in turn ignored 
 England. I do not mean of set purpose ignored, but as the 
 natural consequence of our act. Bishops brought from the 
 corners of the earth, in 1870, what could they know of 
 English blue books and Parliamentary debates in the years 
 1826 and 1829 ■? It was an extraordinary gathering, and 
 its possibility, its purpose, and its issue, were alike mar- 
 vellous, as depending on a coincidence of strange condi- 
 tions, which, as might be said beforehand, never could' take 
 place. Such was the long reign of the Pope, in itself a 
 marvel, as being the sole exception to a recognized ecclesi- 
 astical tradition. Only a Pontiff so unfortunate, so revered, 
 so largely loved, so popular even with Protestants, with such 
 a prestige of long sovereignty, with such claims on the 
 Bishops around him, both of age and of paternal gracious acts, 
 only such a man could have harmonized and guided to the 
 conclusion, which he pointed out, an assembly so variously 
 composed. And, considering the state of theological opinion 
 seventy years before, not less marvellous was the concurrence 
 of aU but a few out of so many hundred Bishops in 
 the theological judgment, so long desired at Rome ; the 
 protest made by some eighty or ninety, at the termination 
 of the Council, against the proceedings of the vast majority 
 lying, not against the truth of the doctrine then defined, 
 but against the fact of its definition. Nor less to be 
 noted is the neglect of the Catholic powers to send repre- 
 sentatives to the Council, who might have laid before the 
 Fathers its political bearings. For myself, I did not call it 
 inopportune, for times and seasons are known to God alone, 
 
I^'TEODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 
 
 and persecution may be as opportune, though not so plea- 
 sant as peace ; nor, in accepting as a dogma what I had 
 ever held as a truth, could I be doing violence to any theo- 
 logical view or conclusion of my own ; nor has the accept- 
 ance of it any logical or practical effect whatever, as I con- 
 sider, in weakening my allegiance to Queen Victoria ; but 
 there are few Catholics, I think, who will not deeply regret, 
 though no one be in fault, that the English and Irish Prela- 
 cies of 1826, did not foresee the possibility of the Synodal 
 determinations of 1870, nor will they wonder that States- 
 men should feel themselves aggrieved, that stipulations, 
 which they considered necessary for Catholic emancipation 
 should have been, as they may think, rudely cast to the 
 winds. 
 
 And now I must pass from the mere accidents of the 
 controversy to its essential points, and I cannot treat them 
 to the satisfaction of Mr. Gladstone, unless I go back a great 
 way, and be allowed to speak of the ancient Catholic 
 Church. 
 
18 
 
 -§ 2. The Ancient Chtooh. 
 
 When Mr. Gladstone accuses us of " repudiating ancient 
 Mstory," lie means the ancient history of the Church ; 
 also, I understand him to be viewing that history under a 
 particular aspect. There are many aspects in which Chris- 
 tianity presents itself to us ; for instance, the aspect of social 
 usefulness, or of devotion, or again of theology ; but, though 
 he in one place glances at the last of these aspects, his own 
 view of it is its relation towards the civil power. He 
 writes " as one of the world at large ;" as a " layman 
 who has spent most and the best years of his life in the 
 observation and practice of politics ; " p. 7, and, as a states- 
 man, he naturally looks at the Church on its political 
 side. Accordingly, in his title-page, in which he professes 
 to be expostulating with us for accepting the Vatican Decrees, 
 he does soj^not for any reason whatever, but because of their 
 incompatibility with our civil allegiance. This is the key-note 
 of his impeachment of us. As a public man, he has only to do 
 with the public action and effect of our Keligion, its aspect 
 upon national affairs, on our civil duties, on our foreign inte- 
 rests ; and he tells us that our Eeligion has a bearing and 
 behaviour towards the State utterly unlike that of an- 
 cient Christianity, so unlike that we' may be said to repu- 
 diate what Christianity was in its first centuries, so unlike 
 to what it was then, that we have actually forfeited the proud 
 boast of being " Ever one and the same ; " unlike, I say, 
 in this, that our action is so antagonistic to the State's 
 action, and our claims so menacing to civU peace and pro- 
 sperity. Indeed ! then I suppose our Lord and His Apos- 
 tles, that St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of 
 Smyrna, and St.. Cyprian of Carthage, and St. I/aurence of 
 Eome, that St. Alexander and St. Paul of Constantino- 
 ple, that St. Ambrose of Milan, that Popes Leo, John, Syl- 
 verian, Gregory, and Martin; all members of the "undi- 
 
THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 19 
 
 vided Church," cared supremely, and laboured successfully, 
 to cultivate peaceful relations with the government of Kome. 
 They had no doctrines and precepts, no rules of life, no iso- 
 lation and aggressiveness, which caused them to be consi- 
 dered, in spite of themselves, the enemies of the human 
 race ! May 1 not, without disrespect, submit to Mr. Glad- 
 stone that this is very paradoxical ? Surely it is our fidelity 
 to the 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 show jealousy of the 
 Church ? Was it when Decius and Dioclesian slaughtered 
 their thousands who had abjured the religion of old 
 Rome? or, was it When Athanasius was banished to Treves? or 
 when Basil, on the Imperial Prefect's crying out, " Never 
 before did any man make so free with me," answered, " Per- 
 haps you never before fell in with a Bishop T or when Chry- 
 sostom was sent off to Cucusus, to be worried to death by an 
 Empress ?. Go through the long annals of Church History, 
 century after century, and say, Avas there ever a time when 
 her Bishops, and notably the Bishop of Rome, were slow to 
 give their testimony in behalf of the moral and revealed 
 law and to suff'er for their obedience to it, or forgot that 
 they had a message to deliver to the world ? not the task 
 merely of administering spiritual consolation, or of making 
 the sick-bed easy, or of training up good members of society, 
 and of " serving tables," (though all this was included in 
 their range of duty) ; but specially and directly to deliver 
 a message to the world, a definite message to high and 
 low, from the world's Maker, whether men would hear 
 or whether they would forbear ? The history surely of 
 the Church in all past times, ancient as well as medie- 
 val, is the very embodiment of that tradition of Apostolical 
 independence and freedom of speech which in the eyes of 
 man is her great offence now. 
 
 Nay, that independence, I may say, is even one of her 
 Notes or credentials ; for where shall we find it ex6ept 
 in the Catholic Church ? " I spoke of Thy testimonies," 
 says the Psalmist, "even before kings, and I was not 
 ashamed." This verse, I think Dr. Arnold used to say, rose 
 
20 THE ANCIENT CHUUCH. 
 
 up in judgment against the Anglican Cliui'cli, in spite of 
 its real excellences. As to the Oriental Churches, every 
 one knows in what bondage they lie, whether they are under 
 the rule of the Czar or of the Sultan. Such is the actual 
 fact that, whereas it is the very mission of Christianity to 
 bear witness to the Creed and Ten Commandments in a 
 world which is averse to them, Eome is now the one faithful 
 representative, and thereby is heir and successor of that 
 freespoken dauntless Church of old, whose traditions Mr. 
 Gladstone says the said Rome has repudiated. 
 
 I have one thing more to say on the subject of the " sem- 
 per eadem." In truth, this fidelity to the ancient Christian 
 system, seen in modern Rome, was the luminous fact which 
 more than any other turned men's minds at Oxford forty 
 years ago to look towards her with reverence, interest, and 
 love. It affected individual minds variously of course ; 
 some it even brought on eventually to conversion, others it 
 only restrained from active opposition to her claims ; but no 
 one could read the Fathers, and determine to be their disci- 
 ple, without feeling that Eome, like a faithful steward, had 
 kept in fulness and in vigour what his own communion had 
 let drop. The Tracts for the Times were founded on a deadly 
 antagonism to what in these last centuries has been called 
 Erastianism orCaesarism. Their writers 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 of Christ, with a message to all men every where, 
 and a claim on their lote and obedience ; and, in relation to 
 the civil power, the object of that promise of the Jewish pro- 
 phets, " Behold; I will lift up My Hand to the Gentiles, and 
 will set up My standard to the peoples, kings and then- 
 queens shall bow down to thee with their face toward the 
 earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet." No 
 Ultramontane (so called) could go beyond those writers in 
 the account which they gave of her from the Prophets, and 
 that high notion is recorded beyond mistake in a thousand 
 passages of their writings. 
 
 There is a fine passage of Mr. Keble's in the British 
 Critic, in animadversion upon a contemporary reviewer. Mr. 
 
THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 21 
 
 Hurrell Froude, speaking of the Cliurcli of England, had 
 said that "she was 'united' to the State as Israel 
 to Egypt." This shocked the reviewer in question, who 
 exclaimed in consequence, "The Church is not united 
 to the State as Israel to Egypt; it is united as a be- 
 lieving wife to a husband who threatened to apostatize ; 
 and, as a Christian wife so placed would act . . clinging to 
 the connection . . so the Church must struggle even now, and 
 save, not herself, but the State,, from the crime of a 
 divorce." On this Mr. Keble says, " We had thought 
 that the Spouse of the Church was a very different Per- 
 son from any or all States, and her relation to the State 
 tllrough Him very unlike that of hers, whose duties are 
 summed up in ' love, service, cherishing, and obedi- 
 ence.' And since the one is exclusively of this world, 
 the other essentially of the eternal world, such an Alliance 
 as the above sentence describes, would have seemed 
 to us, 7iot only fatal, but monstrous !"* And he quotes the 
 hues, — 
 
 " Mortua quinetiam jungebat corpora vivis, 
 Componens manibusque manus, atque oribus ora : 
 Tormenti genus ! " 
 
 It was this same conviction that the Church had rights 
 which the State could not touch, and was prone to ignore, 
 and whi(;h in consequence were the occasion of great trou- 
 bles between the two, that led Mr. Froude at the beginning 
 of the movement to translate the letters of St. Thomas 
 Becket, and Mr. Bowden to write the Life of Hildebrand. 
 As to myself, I will but refer, as to one out of many pas- 
 sages with the same drift, in the books and tracts which I 
 published at that time, to my Whit-Monday and Whit- 
 Tuesday Sermons. 
 
 I believe a large number of members of the Church of 
 England at this time are faithful to the doctrine which was 
 proclaimed within its pale in 1 833,' and following years ; the 
 main difference- between them and Catholics being, not as 
 
 * Eeview of Gladstone's " The State in its Relations with the Church," 
 October, 1839. 
 
22 THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 
 
 to the existence of certain higli prerogatives and spiritual 
 powers in tlie Christian Church, but that the powers which 
 we give to the Holy See, they lodge in her Bishops and 
 Priests, whether as a body or individually. Of course, this 
 is a very important difference, but it does not enter into 
 my argument here. It does seem to me preposterous to 
 charge the Catholic Church of to-day with repudiating an- 
 cient history by certain political acts of hers, and thereby 
 losing her identity, when it was her very likeness in poli- 
 tical action to the Church of the first centuries, that has in 
 our time attracted even to her communion, or at least to 
 her teaching, not a few educated men, who made those first 
 centuries their special model. 
 
 But I have more to say on this subject, perhaps too much, 
 when I go on, as I now do, to contemplate the Christian 
 Church, when persecution was exchanged for establishment, 
 and her enemies became her children. As she resisted and 
 defied her persecutors, so she ruled her 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 she is a messenger from God, therefore, 
 should the State, with its high officials and its subject 
 masses, come into her communion, it is plain that they must 
 at once change hostility into submission. There was no 
 middle term ; either they must deny her claim to divinity 
 or humble themselves before it, — that is, as far as the do- 
 main of religion extends, and that domain is a wide one. 
 They could not place God and man on one level. We see 
 this principle carried out among ourselves in all sects every 
 day, though with greater or less exactness of application, 
 according to the supernatural power which they ascribe to 
 their ministers or clergy. It is a sentiment of nature, which 
 anticipates the inspired command, " Obey them that have 
 the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch 
 for your souls." 
 
 As regards the Eoman Emperors, immediately on their 
 becoming Christians, their exaltation of the hierarchy was 
 in proportion to its abject condition in the heathen- period. 
 
THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 23 
 
 Grateful converts felt that they could not do too much in 
 its honour and service. Emperors bowed the head before 
 the Bishops, kissed their hands and asked their blessing. 
 When Constantine entered into the presence of the assem- 
 bled Prelates at Nicaea, his eyes fell, the colour mounted up 
 into his cheek, and his mien was that of a suppliant ; he 
 would not sit, till the Bishops bade him, and he kissed the 
 wounds of the Confessors. He set the example for the suc- 
 cessors of his power, nor did the Bishops decline such 
 honours. Emperors' wives served them- at table ; when 
 they did wrong, they did penance and asked forgive- 
 ness. When they quarrelled with them, and would banish 
 them, their hand trembled when they came to sign the 
 order, and refused to do its office, and after various attempts 
 they gave up their purpose. Soldiers raised to sovereignty 
 asked their recognition and were refused it. Cities under 
 imperial displeasure sought their intervention, and the 
 master of thirty legions found himself powerless to with- 
 stand the feeble voice of some aged travel-stained stranger. 
 Laws were passed in favour of the Church; Bishops could 
 only be judged by Bishops, and the causes of their clergy 
 were withdrawn from the secular courts. Their sentence 
 was final, as if it were the Emperor's own, and the governors 
 of provinces were bound to put it in execution. Litigants 
 everywhere were allowed the liberty of referring their cause 
 to the tribunal of the Bishops, who, besides, became arbitra- 
 tors on a large scale in private quarrels ; and the public, 
 even heathens, wished it so. St. Ambrose was sometimes so 
 taken up with business of this sort, that he had time for no- 
 thing else. St. Austin and Theodoret both complain of the 
 weight of such secular engagements, as forced upon them by 
 the importunity of the people. Nor was this aU; the Empe- 
 rors showed their belief in the divinity of the Church and 
 of its creed by acts of what we should now call persecution. 
 Jews were forbidden to proselytize a Christian ; Christians 
 were forbidden to become pagans ; pagan rites were abo- 
 lished, the books of heretics and infidels were burned whole- 
 sale ; their chapels were razed to the ground, and even 
 their private meetings were made illegal. 
 
24 THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 
 
 These eharacteristics of the convert Empire were the im- 
 mediate, some of them the logical, consequences, of its new 
 faith. Had not the Emperors honoured Christianity in its 
 ministers and in its precepts, they would not properly have 
 deserved the name of converts. Nor was it unreasonable in 
 litigants voluntarily to frequent the episcopal tribunals, if 
 they got justice done to them there better than in the civil 
 courts. As to the prohibition of heretical meetings, I can- 
 not get myself quite to believe that Pagans, Marcionites, 
 and Manichees had much tenderness of conscience in their 
 reHgious profession, or were wounded seriously by the Im- 
 perial rescript to their disadvantage. Many of these sects 
 were of a most immoral character, whether in doctrine or 
 practice ; others .were forms of witchcraft ; often they were 
 little better than paganism. The Novatians certainly stand 
 on higher ground ; but on the whole, it would be most un- 
 just to class such wild, impure, inhuman rites with even the 
 most extravagant and grotesque of American sectaries now. 
 They could entertain no bitter feeling that injustice was done 
 them in their repression. They did not make free thought 
 or private judgment their watch words. The populations 
 of the Empire did not rise in revolt when its religion 
 was changed. There were two broad conditions which 
 accompanied the grant of all this ecclesiastical power and 
 privilege, and made the exercise of it possible ; first, that 
 the people consented to it, secondly, that it was enforced 
 by the law of the Empire. High and low opened the door 
 to it. The Church of course would say that such preroga- 
 tives were rightfully hers, as being at least congruous grants 
 made to her, on the part of the State, in return for the benefits 
 which she bestowed upon it. It was her right to demand 
 them, and the State's duty to concede them. This seems 
 to have been the basis of the new state of society. And in fact 
 these prerogatives were in force and in exercise aU through 
 those troublous centuries which followed the break-up of the 
 Imperial sway : and, though the handling of them at length 
 fell into the hands of one see exclusively (on which I shall 
 remark presently), the see of Peter, yet the substance and 
 character of these prerogatives, and the Church's claim to 
 
THE ANCIENT CHURCH. 25 
 
 possess them, remained untouched. The change in the 
 internal allocation of power did not affect the existence 
 and the use of the power itself. 
 
 Eanke, speaking of this development of ecclesiastical 
 supremacy upon the conversion of the Empire, remarks as 
 follows : 
 
 " It appears to me that this was the result of an internal 
 necessity. The rise of Christianity involved the liberation 
 of religion from all political elements. From this followed 
 the growth of a distinct ecclesiastical class with a peculiar 
 constitution. In this separation of the Church from the 
 State consists, perhaps, the greatest, the most pervading 
 and influential peculiarity of all Christian times. The 
 spiritual and secular powers may come into near contact, 
 may even stand in the closest community ; but they can be 
 thoroughly incorporated only at rare conjunctures and for 
 a short period. Their mutual relations, their position with 
 regard to each other, form, from this time forward, one of 
 the most important considerations in all history." — Tlie 
 Popes, vol. i., p. 10, transl. 
 
26 
 
 ^ 3. The Papal Chuech. 
 
 Now we come to the distinctive doctrine of the Cathohc 
 EeUgion, the doctrine which separates us from all other de^ 
 nominations of Christians however near they may approach 
 to us in other respects, the claims of the see of Eome, which 
 have given occasion to Mr. Gladstone's Pamphlet and to the 
 remarks which I am now making upon it. Of those rights, 
 prerogatives, privileges, and duties, which I have been sur- 
 veying in the ancient Church, the Pope is the heir. I shall 
 dwell now upon this point, as far as it is to my purpose to 
 do so, not treating it theologically (else I must define and 
 prove from Scripture and the Fathers the " Primatus jure 
 divino Romani Pontificis "), but historically, becaus^e Mr. 
 Gladstone appeals to history. Instead of treating it theo- 
 logically I wish to look with (as it were) secular, or even 
 non-Catholic eyes at the powers claimed during the last 
 thousand years by the Pope — that is, only as they lie in the 
 nature of the case, and in the surface of the facts which 
 come before us in history. 
 
 1. I say then the Pope is the heir of the Ecumenical Hie- 
 rarchy of the fourth century, as being, what I may call, heir 
 by default. No one else claims or exercises its rights or its 
 duties. Is it possible to consider the Patriarch of Moscow 
 or of Constantinople, heir to the historical pretensions of St. 
 Ambrose or St. Martin 1 Does any Anglican Bishop for the 
 last 300 years recall to our minds the image of St. Basil ? 
 Well, then, has aU that ecclesiastical power, which makes 
 such a show in the Christian Empire, simply vanished, or, if 
 not, where is it to be found ? I wish Protestants would throw 
 themselves into our minds upon this point ; I am not hold- 
 ing an argument with them ; I am only wishing them to 
 understand where we stand and how we look at things. There 
 is this great difference of belief between us and them : they 
 do not believe that Christ set up a visible society, or rather 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 27 
 
 kingdom, for the propagation and maintenance of His reli- 
 gion, for a necessary home and refuge of His people ; but 
 we do. We know the kingdom is still on earth : where is 
 it ? If all that can be found of it is what can be discerned 
 at Constantinople or Canterbury, I say, it has disappeared ; 
 and either there was a radical corruption of Christianity 
 from the first, or Christianity came to an end, in proportion 
 as the type of the Nicene Church faded out of the world : for 
 all that we know of Christianity, in ancient history, as a con- 
 crete fact, is the Church of Athanasius and his fellows : it is 
 nothing else historically but that bundle of phenomena, that 
 combination of claims, prerogatives, and corresponding acts, 
 some of which I have recounted above. There is no help 
 for it ; we cannot take as much as we please, and no more, 
 of an institution which has a monadic existence. We must 
 either give up the belief in the Church as a divine institu- 
 tion altogether, or we must recognize it in that communion 
 of which the Pope is the head. With him alone and round 
 about him are found the claims, the prerogatives, and duties 
 which we identify with the kingdom set up by Christ. We 
 must take things as they are ; to believe in ^ Church, is to 
 believe in the Pope. And thus this behef in the Pope and 
 his attributes, which seems so monstrous to Protestants, is 
 bound up with our being Catholics at all ; as our Catholicism 
 is with our Christianity. There is nothing then of wanton 
 opposition to the powers that be, no dinning of novelties in 
 their startled ears in what is often unjustly called Ultra- 
 montane doctrine ; there is no pernicious servility to the 
 Pope in our admission of his pretensions. I say, we cannot 
 help ourselves — Parliament may deal as harshly with us ^s 
 it wlU ; we should not believe in the Church at aU, unless 
 we believed in its visible head. 
 
 So it is ; the course of ages has fulfilled the prophecy and 
 promise, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I wiU build 
 My Church ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall 
 be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven." That which in substance 
 was possessed by the Nicene Hierarchy, that the Pope 
 claims now. I do not wish to put difiiculties in my way ; 
 
28 THE PAPAL CHUKCH. 
 
 but I cannot conceal or smooth over what I believe to be 
 a simple truth, though the avowal of it will be very un- 
 welcome to Protestants, and, as I fear, to some Catholics. 
 However, I do not call upon another to believe all that I 
 believe on the subject myself. I declare it, as my own 
 judgment, that the prerogatives, such as, and, . in the 
 way in which, I have described them in substance, which the 
 Church had under the Eoman Power, those she claims now, 
 and never, never will relinquish; claims them, not as 
 having received them from a dead Empire, but partly by 
 the direct endowment of her Divine Master, and partly as 
 being a legitimate outcome of that endowment ; claims 
 them, but not except from Catholic populations, not as if 
 accounting the more sublime of them to be of every-day use, 
 but holding them as a protection or remedy in great emergen- 
 cies or on supreme occasions, when nothing else will serve, 
 as extraordinary and solemn acts of her religious sovereignty. 
 And our Lorcl, seeing what would be brought about by 
 human means, even had He not willed it, and recognizing, 
 from the laws which He Himself had imposed upon human 
 society, that no large community could be strong which had 
 no head, spoke , the word in the beginning, as He did to 
 Judah, " Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise," and 
 then left it to the course of events to fulfil it. 
 
 2. Mr. Gladstone ought to have chosen another issue for 
 attack upon us, than the Pope's power. His real difficulty lies 
 deeper ; as little permission as he allows to the Pope, would he 
 allow to any ecclesiastic who would wield the weapons of St. 
 Ambrose and St. Augustine. That concentration of the 
 Church's powers which history brings before us should not 
 be the object of his special indignation. It is not the ex- 
 istence of a Pope, but of a Church, which is his aversion. 
 It is the powers, and not their distribution and allocation in 
 the ecclesiastical body which he writes against. A triangle 
 or parallelogram is the same in its substance and nature, 
 whichever side is made its base. " The Pontifis," says Mr. 
 Bowden, who writes as an Anglican, " exalted to the kingly 
 throne of St. Peter, did not so much claim new privileges 
 for themselves, as deprive their episcopal brethren of privi- 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 29 
 
 leges originally common to the hierarchy. Even the titles 
 by which those autocratical prelates, in the plenitude of 
 their power, delighted to style themselves, ' Summus Sacer- 
 dos,' ' Pontifex Maximus,' ' Yicarius Christi/ ' Papa ' itself, 
 had, nearer to the primitive times, been the honourable 
 appellations of every bishop ; as " Sedes Apostolica " had 
 been the description of every Bishop's throne. The ascrip- 
 tion of these titles, therefore, to the Pope only gave to the 
 terms new force, because that ascription became exclusive ; 
 because, that is, the bishops in general were stripped of 
 honours, to which their claims were as well founded as those 
 of their Roman brother, who became, by the change, not so 
 strictly universal as sole Bishop." {Greg. vii. vol. i. p. 64.) 
 Say that the Christian polity remained, as history repre- 
 sents it to us in the fourth century, or that now it was, if 
 that was possible, to revert to such a state, would politicians 
 have less trouble with J 800 centres of power than they 
 have with one *? Instead of one, with traditionary rules, the 
 trammels of treaties and engagements, public opinion to 
 consult and manage, the responsibility of. great interests, 
 and the guarantee for his behaviour in his temporal posses- 
 sions, there would be a legion of ecclesiastics, each bishop 
 with his following, each independent of the others, 
 each with his own views, each with extraordinary powers, 
 each with the risk of misusing them, all over Christendom. 
 It would be the Anglican theory, made real. It would be 
 an ecclesiastical communism ; and, if it did not benefit reli- 
 gion, at least it would not benefit the civU power. Take a 
 small illustration: — what interruption at this time to Par- 
 liamentaiy proceedings, does a small zealous party occasion, 
 which its enemies call a "mere handful of clergy;" and 
 why ■? Because its members are responsible for what they 
 do to God alone and to their conscience as His voice. Even 
 suppose it was only here or there that episcopal autonomy 
 was vigorous ; yet consider what zeal is kindled by local inte- 
 rests and national spirit. One John of Tuam, with a Pope's 
 full apostolic powers, would be a greater trial to successive 
 ministries than an Ecumenical Bishop at Rome. Parliament 
 understands this well, for it exclaims against the Sacerdotal 
 
30 THE PAPAL CHtJRCH. 
 
 principle. Here, for a second reason, if our Divine Master 
 has given those great powers to the Church, which ancient 
 Christianity testifies, we see why His Providence has also 
 provided that the exercise of them should be concentrated 
 in one see. 
 
 But, anyhow, the progress of concentration was not the 
 work of the Pope ; it was brought about by the changes of 
 times and the vicissitudes of nations. It was not his fault 
 that the Vandals swept away the African sees, and the 
 Saracens those of Syria and Asia Minor, or that Constanti- 
 nople and its dependencies became the creatures of Imperial- 
 ism, or that Prance, England, and Germany would obey 
 none but the author of their own Christianity, or that clergy 
 and people at a distance were obstinate in sheltering them- 
 selves under the majesty of Rome against their own fierce 
 kings and nobles or imperious bishops, even to the imposing 
 forgeries on the world and on the Pope in justification of 
 their proceedings. All this will be fact, whether the Popes 
 were ambitious or not ; and still it will be fact that the 
 issue of that great change was a great benefit to the whole 
 of Europe. No one but a Master, who was a thousand 
 bishops in himself at once, could have tamed and controlled, 
 as the Pope did, the great and little tyrants of the middle 
 age. 
 
 3. This is generally confessed now, even by Protestant 
 historians, viz., that the concentration of ecclesiastical power in 
 those centuries was simply necessary for the civilization of 
 Europe. Of course it does not follow that the benefits ren- 
 dered then to the European commonwealth by the political 
 supremacy of the Pope, would, if he was still supreme, be 
 rendered in time to come. I have no wish to make assump- 
 tions ; yet conclusions short of this wiU be unfavourable to 
 Mr. Gladstone's denunciation of him. We reap the fruit at 
 this day of his services in the past. With the purpose of 
 showing this I make a rather long extract from Dean Mil- 
 man's " Latin Christianity ;" he is speaking of the era of 
 Gregory I, and he says, the Papacy, " was the only power 
 which lay not entirely and absolutely prostrate before the 
 disasters of the times — a power which had an inherent 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 31 
 
 strength, and might resume its majesty. It was this power 
 which was most imperatively required to preserve all which 
 was to survive out of the crumbling wreck of Roman civili- 
 zation. To Western Christianity was absolutely necessary 
 a centre, standing alone, strong in traditionary reverence, 
 and in acknowledged claims to supremacy. Even the per- 
 fect organization of the Christian hierarchy might in all 
 human probability have fallen to pieces in perpetual con- 
 flict : it might have degenerated into a half secular feudal 
 caste, with hereditary benefices more and more entirely sub- 
 servient to the civil authority, a priesthood of each nation or 
 each tribe, gradually sinking to the intellectual or religious 
 level of the nation or tribe. On the rise of a power both con- 
 trolling and conservative hung, humanly speaking, the life and 
 death of Christianity — of Christianity as a permanent, aggres- 
 sive, expansive, and, to a certain extent, uniform system. 
 There must be a counterbalance to barbaric force, to the un- 
 avoidable anarchy of Teutonism, with its tribal, or at the 
 utmost national independence, forming a host of small, con- 
 flicting, antagonistic kingdoms. All Europe would have 
 been what England was under the Octarchy, what Germany 
 was when her emperors were weak ; ahd even her emperors 
 she owed to Rome, to the Church, to Christianity. Provi- 
 dence might have otherwise ordained ; but it is impossible 
 for man to imagine by what other organising or consolidating 
 force the commonwealth of the Western nations could have 
 grown up to a discordant, indeed, and conflicting league, 
 but stiU a league, with that unity and conformity of man- 
 ners, usages, laws, religion, which have made their rivalries, 
 oppugnancies, and even their long ceaseless wars, on the 
 whole to issue in the noblest, highest, most intellectual form 
 of civihzation known to man... It is impossible to con- 
 ceive what had been the confusion, the lawlessness, the 
 chaotic state of the middle ages, without the medieval 
 Papacy ; and of the medieval Papacy the real father is 
 Gregory the Great. In all his predecessors 'there was much 
 of the uncertainty and indefiniteness of a new dominion. 
 ...Gregory is the Roman altogether merged in the Chris- 
 tian Bishop. It is a Christian dominion, of which he 
 
32 THE PAPAL CHURCH. 
 
 lays the foundations in the Eternal City, not the old Eome, 
 associating Christian influence to her ancient title of sove- 
 reignty." (Vol. i., p. 401, 2.) 
 
 4. From Gregory I. tolnnocent Ill.is six hundred years ; 
 — a very fair portion of the world's history, to have passed 
 in doing good of primary importance to a whole continent, 
 and that the continent of Europe ; good, by which all 
 nations and their governors, all statesmen and legislatures, 
 are the gainers. And, again, should it not occur to Mr, 
 Gladstone that these services were rendered to mankind hy 
 means of those very instruments of power on which he 
 thinks it proper to pour contemjpt as "rusty tools .''" The 
 right to warn and punish powerful men, to excommunicate 
 kings, to preach aloud truth and justice to the inhabitants 
 of the earth, to denounce immoral doctrines, to strike at 
 rebellion in the garb of heresy, were the very weapons by 
 which Europe was brought into a civilized condition ; yet 
 he calls them "rusty tools" which need "refurbishing." 
 Does he wish then that such high expressions of ecclesiasti- 
 cal displeasure, such sharp penalties, should be of daily use ? 
 If they are rusty, because they have been long without 
 using, then have they ever beenrusty. Is a Council a rusty 
 tool, because none had been held, till 1870, since the six- 
 teenth century ? or because there had been but nineteen in 
 1900 years ? How many times is it in the history of Chris- 
 tianity that the Pope has solemnly drawn and exercised his 
 sword upon a king or an emperor ? If an extraordinary 
 weapon must be a rusty tool, I suppose Gregory VII. 's 
 sword was not keen enough for the German Henry ; and 
 the seventh Pius too used a rusty tool in his excommunica- 
 tion of Napoleon. How could Mr. Gladstone ever " fondly 
 think that Rome had disused " her weapons, and that they 
 had hung up as antiquities and curiosities in her celestial 
 armoury, — or, in his own words, as " hideous mummies," p. 
 46, — ^when the passage of arms between the great Conqueror 
 and the aged Pope was so close upon his memory ! Would 
 he like to see a mummy come to life again ? That unexpected 
 miracle actually took place in the first years of this century. 
 Gregory was considered to have done an astounding deed in 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 33 
 
 the middle ages, when he brought Henry, the German Em- 
 peror, to do penance and shiver in the snow at Canossa ; 
 but Napoleon had his snow-penance too, and that with an 
 actual interposition of Providence in the infliction of it. I 
 describe it in the words of Alison : — 
 
 " ' What does the Pope mean/ said Napoleon to Eugene, 
 in July, 1807, 'by the threat of excommunicating me? 
 does he think the world has gone back a thousand years ? 
 Does he suppose the arms will fall from the hands of my 
 soldiers ?' Within two years after these remarkable words 
 were written, the Pope did excommunicate him, in return for 
 the confiscation of his whole dominions, and in les^ than 
 four years more, the arms did fall from the hands of his 
 soldiers ; and the hosts, apparently invincible, which he had 
 collected were dispersed and ruined by the blasts of winter. 
 ' The weapons of the soldiers,' says Segur, in describing 
 the Kussian retreat, ' appeared of an insupportable weight 
 to their stifiened arms. During their frequent falls they fell 
 from their hands, and destitute of the power of raising 
 them from the ground, they were left in the snow. They 
 did not throw them away : famine and cold tore them from 
 their grasp.' ' The soldiers could no longer hold their 
 weapons/ says Salgues, ' they fell from the hands even 
 of the bravest and most robust. The muskets dropped 
 from the frozen arms of those who bore them.'" {Hist. ch. 
 Ix., 9th ed.) 
 
 Ahson adds — " There is something in these marvellous 
 coincidences beyond the operations of chance, and which 
 even a Protestant historian feels himself bound to mark for 
 the observation of future ages. The world has not gone back 
 a thousand years, but that Being existed with whom a thou- 
 sand years are as one day, and one day as a" thousand 
 years." As He was with Gregory in 1077, so He was with 
 Pius in 1812, and He will be with some future Pope again, 
 when the necessity shall come. 
 
 5. In saying this,I am farfrom saying that Popes are never 
 inthewrongiand are never to be resisted; or that their excom- 
 munications always avail. I amnot bound to defend the poHcy 
 or the acts of particular Popes, whether before or after the 
 
 c 
 
34 THE PAPAL CHURCH. 
 
 great revolt from their authority in the 16th century. There 
 .is no reason that 1 should contend, and I do not contend, for 
 instance, that they at all times have understood our own 
 people, our national character and resources, and our posi- 
 tion in Europe ; or that they have never suffered from bad 
 counsellors or, misinformation. I say this the more freely, 
 because Urban VIII., about the year 1641 or 1642, 
 blamed the policy of some Popes of the preceding century 
 in their dealings with our country.'^'" 
 
 Butj whatever we are bound to allow to Mr. Gladstone 
 on this head, that does not warrant the passionate invective 
 against . the Holy See and us individually, which he has car- 
 ried on through sixty-four pages. What we have a manifest 
 right to expect from him is lawyer- like exactness and logi- 
 cal consecutiveness in his impeachment of us. The. heavier 
 that is, the less does it need the exaggerations of a great 
 orator. If the Pope's conduct towards us three centuries 
 ago has righteously wiped out the memory of his earlier 
 benefits, yet he should have a fair trial. The more intoxi- 
 cating was his solitary greatness, when it was in the zenith, 
 the greater consideration should be shown towards him in his 
 presenttemporal humiliation, when concentration of ecclesias- 
 tical functions in one man, does but make him, in the presence 
 of the haters of Catholicism, what-a Roman Emperor con- 
 templated, when he wished all his subjects had but one neck 
 that he might destroy them by one blow. Surely, in the 
 trial of so august a criminal, one might have hoped, at least, 
 to have found gravity and measure in language, and calm- 
 ness in tone — not a pamphlet written as if on impulse, in de- 
 fence of an incidental parenthesis in a previous publication, 
 
 * " When he was urged to excommvinicate the Kings of France and 
 Sweden, he made answer, ' We may declare th^m excommuni- 
 cate, as Pins V. declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him 
 Clement VII. the King of England, Henry VIII. . . but with what 
 success 1 The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it with tears of 
 blood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V. or Clement VII., 
 but Paul V. who, in the beginning, being many times urged by the Spa- 
 niards to excommunicate James King of England, never would consent 
 to it'" (State Paper Office, Italij, 1641—1662). Vide Mr. Simpson's very 
 able and careful life of Campion, 1867, p. 371. 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 35 
 
 and then, after having been multiplied in 22,000 copies, ap- 
 pealing to the lower classes in the shape of a sixpenny tract, 
 the lowness of the price indicating the width of the circula- 
 tion. Surely Nana Sahib will have more justice done to him 
 by the English people, th|in has been shown to the Father of 
 European civilization. 
 
 6. I have been referring to the desolate state in which 
 the Holy See has been cast during the last years, such that the 
 Pope, humanly speaking, is at the mercy of his enemies, and 
 morally a prisoner in his palace. A state of such secular 
 feebleness cannot last for ever ; sooner or later there wiU 
 be, in the divine mercy, a change fcr the better, and the 
 Vicar of Christ will no longer be a mark for insult and 
 indignity. But one thing, except by an almost mira- 
 culous interposition, cannot be ; and that is, a return to the 
 universal religious sentiment, the public opinion, of the me- 
 dieval time. The Pope himself calls those centuries " the 
 ages of faith." Such endemic faith may certainly be de- 
 creed for some future time ; but, as far as we have the 
 means of judging a± present, centuries must run out 
 first. Even in the fourth century the ecclesiastical pri- 
 vileges, claimed on the one hand, granted on the other, 
 came into effect more or less under two conditions, that 
 they were recognized by public law, and that they had the 
 consent of -the Christian populations. Is there any chance 
 whatever, except by miracles which were not granted then, 
 that the public law and the inhabitants of Europe will 
 allow the Pope that exercise of his rights, which they allowed 
 him as a matter of course in the 11th and 12th centuries ? 
 If the whole world will at once answer No, it is surely in- 
 opportune to taunt us with the acts of medieval Popes in 
 the ease of certain princes and nobles, when the sentiment 
 of Europe was radically Papal. How does the past bear upon 
 the present in this matter ? Yet Mr. Gladstone is in earnest 
 alarm, earnest with the earnestness which distinguishes him 
 as a statesman,at the harm which society may receive from the 
 Pope, at a time when the Pope can do nothing. He grants (p. 
 46) that "the fears are visionary . . that either foreign foe or 
 domestic treason can, at the bidding of the Court of Rome, 
 
36 THE PAPAL CHURCH. 
 
 disturb these peaceful shores ; " he allows that " in the 
 middle ages the Popes contended, not by direct action of 
 fleets and armies," but mainly " by interdicts," p. 35. Yet, 
 Taecause men then believed in interdicts, though now they 
 don't, therefore the civil Power is to be roused against the 
 Pope. But his animus is bad ; his animus! what can animus 
 do without matter to work upon ? Mere animus, like big 
 words, breaks no bones. 
 
 As if to answer Mr. Gladstone by anticipation, and to 
 allay his fears, the Pope made a declaration three years ago 
 on the subject, which, strange to say, Mr. Gladstone quotes 
 without perceiving that it tells against the very argument, 
 which he brings it to corroborate ; — that is, except as the 
 Pope's animus goes. Doubtless he would wish to have the 
 place in the political world which his predecessors had, because 
 it was given to him by Providence, and is conducive to the 
 highest interests of mankind ; but he distinctly tells us that 
 he has not got it, and cannot have it, till a time comes, of the 
 prospect of which we are as good judges as he can be, and 
 which we say cannot come, at least for centuries. He speaks 
 of what is his highest political power, that of interposing in 
 the quarrel between a prince and his subjects, and of declar- 
 ing upon appeal made to him from them, that the Prince had 
 or had not forfeited their allegiance.- This power, most 
 rarely exercised, and on very extraordinary occasions, and 
 without any aid of infallibility in the exercise of it, any more 
 than the civU power possesses that aid, it is not necessary for 
 any Catholic to believe ; and I suppose, comparatively speaking, 
 few Catholics do believe it ; to be honest, I must say, I do ; 
 that is, under the conditions which the Pope himself lays 
 down in the declaration to which I have referred, his answer 
 to the address of the Academia. He speaks of his right 
 " to depose sovereigns, and release the people from the obli- 
 gation of loyalty, a right which had undoubtedly sometimes 
 been exercised in crucial circumstances," and he says, " This 
 right (diritto) in those ages of faith, — ^ (which discerned in 
 the Pope, what he is, that is to say, the Supreme Judge of 
 Christianity, and recognized the advantages of his tribunal 
 in the great contests of peoples and sovereigns} — w?is freely 
 
THE PAPAL CHURCH. 37 
 
 extended, — (aided indeed as a matter of duty by the public 
 law {diritto)' and by the common consent of peoples) — to 
 the most important {i piu gravi) interests of states and 
 their rulers." (Guardian, Nov. 11, 1874). 
 
 Now let us observe how the Pope restrains the exercise 
 of this right. He 'calls it his right — that is, in the sense in 
 which right in one party is correlative with duty in the 
 other, so that, when the duty is not observed, the right 
 cannot be brought into exercise ; and this is precisely what 
 he goes on to intimate ; for he lays down the conditions of 
 of that exercise. First it can only be exercised in rare 
 and critical circumstances {supreme circonstanze, i piu 
 gravi inter essi). Next he refers to his being the supreme 
 judge of Christianity, and to his decision as coming from a 
 tribunal ; his prerogative then is not a mere arbitrary power, 
 but must be exercised by a process of law and a formal 
 examination of the case, and in the presence and the 
 hearing of the two parties interested in it. Also in this 
 limitation is implied that the Pope's definitive sentence 
 involves an appeal to the supreme standard of right and 
 wrong, the moral law, as its basis and rule, and must con- 
 tain the definite reasons on which it decides in favour "bf 
 the one party or the other. Thirdly, the exercise of this 
 right is limited to the ages of faith ; ages which, on the one 
 hand, inscribed it among the provisions of thejns publicum, 
 and on the other so fullyrecognized the benefits it conferred,as 
 to be able to enforce it by the common consent of the peoples. 
 These last words should be dwelt on : it is no consent which 
 is merely local, as of one country, of Ireland or of Belgium, 
 if that were probable ; but a united consent of various nations, 
 of Europe, for instance, as a commonwealth, of which the 
 Pope was the head. Thirty years ago we heard much of 
 the Pope being made the head .of an Italian confederation : 
 no word came from England against such an arrangement. , 
 It was possible, because the members of it were all of one 
 religion ; and in like manner a European commonwealth 
 would be reasonable, if Europe were of one religion. Lastly, 
 the Pope declares with indignation that a Pope is not in- 
 faUible in the exercise of this right ; such a notion is an 
 invention of the enemv : he calls it " malicious." 
 
38 
 
 § 4. Divided Allegiance. 
 
 But one attribute the Church has, and the Pope as head 
 of the Church, whether he be in high estate, as this world 
 goes, or not, whether he has temporal possessions or not, 
 whether he is in honour or dishonour, whether he is at 
 home or driven about, whether those special claims of which 
 I have spoken are allowed or not, — and that is Sovereignty. 
 As God has sovereignty, though He may be disobeyed or 
 disowned, so has His Vicar upon earth ; and further than 
 this, since Catholic populations are found everywhere, he 
 ever will be in fact lord, of a vast empire ; as large in num- 
 bers, as far spreading as the British ; and all his acts are 
 sure to be such as are "in keeping with the position of one 
 who is thus supremely exalted. 
 
 I beg not to be interrupted here, as many a reader 
 will interrupt me in his thoughts ; for I am using these 
 words, not at random, but as the commencement of a long 
 explanation, and, in a certain sense, limitation, of what I 
 have hitherto been saying concerning the Church's and 
 the Pope's power. To this task the remaijiing pages, 
 which I have to address to your Grace, will be directed; 
 and I trust that it will turn out, when I come to the end 
 of them, that, by first stating fully what the Pope's claims 
 are, I shall be able most clearly to show what he does not 
 claim. 
 
 Now the key-note of Mr. Gladstone's Pamphlet is 
 this : — that, since the Pope claims infallibility in faith and 
 morals, and since there are no " departments and func- 
 tions of human life which do not and cannot fall within 
 the domain of morals," p. 36, and since he claims also "the 
 domain of all that concerns the government and discipline 
 of the Church," and moreover, " claims the power of deter- 
 mining the limits of those domains," and " does not sever 
 them, by any acknowledged or intelligible line from the 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIAlSrCE. 39 
 
 domains of civil duty and allegiance," p. 45, therefore 
 Catholics are moral and mental slaves, and " every con- 
 vert and member of the Pope's Church places his loyalty 
 and civil duty at the mercy of another," p. 45. - 
 
 I admit Mr. Gladstone's premisses, but I reject his 
 conclusion ; and now I am going to show why I reject it. 
 
 In doing this, I shall, with him, put aside for the 
 present the Pope's prerogative of infallibility in general 
 enunciations, whether of faith or morals, and confine my- 
 self to the consideration of his authority (in respect to 
 which he is not infallible) in matters of daily conduct, and of 
 our duty of obedience to him. " There is something wider 
 still, "he says, (than the claim of infallibility,) "and that is 
 the claim to an Absolute and entire Obedience," p. 37. 
 " Little dx)es it matter to me, whether my Superior claims 
 infallibility, so long as he is entitled to demand and exact 
 conformity," p. 39. He speaks of a third province being 
 opened, " not indeed to the abstract assertion of Infallibi- 
 lity, but to the far more practical and decisive demand of 
 Absolute Obedience," p. 41, "the Absolute Obedience, at 
 the peril of salvation, of every member of his communion," 
 p. 42. 
 
 Now, I proceed to examine this large, direct, religious 
 sovereignty of the Pope, both in its relation to his sub- 
 jects, and to the Civil Power ; but first, I beg to be 
 allowed to say just one word on the principle of obedience 
 itself, that is, by way of inquiry, whether it is or is not 
 now a religious duty. 
 
 Is there then such a duty at all as obedience to eccle- 
 siastical authority now 1 or is it one of those obsolete 
 ideas, which are swept away, as unsightly cobwebs, by the 
 New Civilization ? Scripture says, " Eemember them 
 which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you 
 the word of God, whose faith follow." And, "Ohey them 
 that have the ntZe over you, and submit yourselves; for 
 they watch /or your scuts, as they that must give account, 
 that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that 
 is unprofitable for you." The margin in the Protestant 
 
40 DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. — 
 
 Version reads, "those who are your guides " and the 
 word may also be translated "leaders." Well, as rulers, 
 or guides and leaders, whichever word be right, they are 
 to be obeyed. Now Mr. Gladstone dislikes our way of 
 fulfilling this precept, whether as regards our choice of 
 ruler and leader, or our "Absolute Obedience " to him ; 
 but he does not give us his own. Is there any liberalistic 
 reading of the Scripture passage 1 Or are the words only for 
 the benefit of the poor and ignorant, not for the Schola (as it 
 may be called) of political and periodical writers, not for 
 Individual members of Parliament, not for statesmen and 
 Cabinet ministers, and people of Progress 1 Which party 
 then is the more " Scriptural," those who recognize and 
 carry out in their conduct texts like these, or those who 
 don't 1 May not we Catholics claim some mercy from Mr. 
 Gladstone, though we be faulty in the object and the 
 manner of our obedience, since in a lawless day an object 
 and a manner of obedience we have 1 Can we be blamed, 
 if, arguing from those texts which say that ecclesiastical 
 authority comes from above, we obey it in that one form 
 in which alone we find it on earth, in that only person who 
 claims it of us, among all the notabilities Si' this nineteenth 
 century into which we have been born 1 The Pope has no 
 rival in his claim upon us ; nor is it our doing that his 
 claim has been made and allowed for centuries upon cen- 
 turies, and that it was he who made the Vatican decrees, 
 and not they him. If we give him up, to whom shall we 
 go 1 Can we dress up any civil functionary in the vest- 
 ments of divine authority 1 Can I, for instance, follow 
 the faith, can I put my soul into the hands, of our gracious 
 Sovereign 1 or of the Archbishop of Canterbury 1 or of the 
 Bishop of Lincoln, albeit he is not broad and low, but 
 high 1 Catholics have " done what they could," — all that 
 any one could : and it should be Mr. Gladstone's business, 
 before telling us that we' are slaves, because we obey the 
 Pope, first of aU to tear away those texts from the Bible. 
 
 With this preliminary remark, I proceed to consider 
 whether the Pope's authority is either a slavery to his 
 subjects, or a menace to the Civil Power; tnd first, as to 
 his power over his flnnk. 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 41 
 
 1. Mr. Gladstone say,s that "thePontiflf declarestobelong 
 to him the supreme direction of Catholics in respect to all 
 duty," p. 3 7. Supreme direction ; true, but " supreme " is 
 not " minute," nor does " direction " mean supervision or 
 " management." Take the parallel of human law ; the 
 Law is supreme, and the Law directs our conduct under 
 the manifold circumstances in which we have to act, and 
 must he absolutely obeyed ; but who therefore says that 
 the Law has the " supreme direction " of us ? The State, 
 as well 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 would say 
 that the Law, after all, with all its power in the abstract and 
 its executive vigour in fact, interferes either with our 
 comfort or our conscience. There are numberless laws 
 about property, landed and personal, titles, tenures, trusts, 
 wills, covenants, contracts, partnerships, money transactions, 
 life-insurances, taxes, trade, navigation, education, sanitary 
 measures, trespasses, nuisances, all in addition to the 
 criminal law. Law, to apply Mr. Gladstone's words, 
 " is the shadow that cleaves to us, go where we will." 
 Moreover, it varies year after year, and refuses to give any 
 pledge of fixedness or finality. Nor can any one tell what 
 restraint is to come next, perhaps painful personally to him- 
 self. Nor are its enactments easy of interpretation ; for 
 actual cases, with the speeches and opinions of counsel, 
 and the decisions of judges, must prepare the raw material, 
 as it proceeds from the legislature, before it can be rightly 
 understood ; so that " the glorious uncertainty of the 
 Law " has become a proverb. And, after all, no one is sure^ 
 of escaping its penalties without the assistance of lawyers, 
 and that in such private and personal matters that the 
 lawyers are, as by an imperative duty, bound to a secrecy 
 which even courts of 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 tem- 
 per of a free-born Englishman, and to make him cry out 
 with Mr. Gladstone, " Three-fourths of my life are handed 
 
42 DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 over to the Law ; I care not to ask if there be dregs or 
 tatters of human life, such as can escape from the descrip- 
 tion and boundary of Parliamentary t3T:anny ?" Yet, 
 though we may dislike it, though we may at times suffer 
 from it ever so much, who does not see that the thraldom 
 and irksomeness is nothing compared with the great bless- 
 ings which' the Constitution and Legislature secure to us 1 
 
 Such is the jurisdiction which the Law exercises over us. 
 What rule does the Pope claim which can be compared to 
 its strong and its long arm ? What interference with our 
 liberty of judging and actings in our daily work, in our 
 course of life, comes to us from him ? Really, at first sight, 
 I have not known where to look for instances of his actual 
 interposition in our private affairs, for it is our routine of 
 personal duties about which L am now speaking. Let us 
 see how we stand in this matter. 
 
 We are guided in our ordinary duties by the books of 
 moral theology, which are drawn up by theologians of 
 authority and experience, as an instruction for our Confessors. 
 These books are based on the three Christian foundations 
 of Faith, Hope, and Charity, on the Ten Commandments, 
 and on the six Precepts of the Church, which relate to 
 the observance of Sunday, of fast days, of confession and 
 communion, and, in one shape or other, to paying tithes. 
 A great number of possible cases are noted under these 
 heads, and in difficult questions a variety of opinions are 
 given, with plain directions, when it is that private Catho' 
 lies are at liberty to choose for themselves whatever answer 
 they like best, and when they are bound to follow some 
 one of them in particular. Reducible as these directions 
 in detail are ' to the few and simple heads which I have 
 mentioned, they are little more than reflexions and memo- 
 randa of our moral sense, unlike the positive enactments of 
 the Legislature ; and, on the whole, present to us no diffi- 
 culty — though now and then some critical question may 
 arise, and some answer may be given (just as by the private 
 conscience) which it is difficult to us or painful to accept. 
 And again, cases may occur now and then, when our private 
 judgment differs from what is set down in theological 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIAKCE. 43 
 
 works, but even then it does not follow at once that our 
 private judgment must give way, for those boolts are no 
 utterance of Papal authority. 
 
 And "this is the point to which I am coming. So little 
 does the Pope come into this whole system of moral theo- 
 logy by which (as by our conscience) our lives are regulated, 
 that the. weight of his hand upon us, as private men, is 
 absolutely unappreciable. I have had a difficulty where to 
 find a measure or :guage of his interposition. At length I 
 have looked through Busenbaum's "Medulla," to ascertain 
 what light such a book would tlirow upon the question. It 
 is a book of casuistry for the use of Confessors, running to 
 700 pages, and is a large repository of answers made by 
 various theologians on points of conscience, and generally 
 of duty. • It was first published in. 1645 — my own edition 
 is of 1844 — and in the latter are marked those proposi- 
 tions, bearing on subjects treated in it, which have been 
 condemned by Popes in the intermediate 200 years. On 
 turning over the pages I find they are in all between 50 
 and 60. This list includes matters sacramental, ritual, 
 ecclesiastical, monastic, and disciplinarian, as well as moral, 
 — relating to the duties of ecclesiastics and regulars, of 
 parish priests, and of professional men, as well as of private 
 Catholics, And the condemnations relate for the most part 
 to mere occasional details of duty, and are in reprobation 
 of the lax or wild notions of speculative casuists, so that 
 they are rather restraints upon theologians than upon lay- 
 men. For instance, the following are some of the proposi- 
 tions condemned : —" The ecclesiastic, who on a certain 
 day is hindered from saying Matins and Lauds, is not bound 
 to say, if he can, the remaining hours ;" "Where there is 
 good cause, it is lawful to swear without the purpose of 
 swearing, whether the matter is of light or grave moment;" 
 " Domestics, may steal from their masters, in compensation 
 for their service, 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 cannot other- 
 wise escape the ignominy." I have taken these instances at 
 random. It must be granted, I think, that in the long 
 
44 DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 course of 200 years the amount of the Pope's authoritative 
 enunciations has not been such as to press heavily on the 
 back of the private Cathohc. He leaves us surely far 
 more than that "one fourth of the department of con- 
 duct/' which Mr. Gladstone allows us. Indeed, if my 
 account and specimens of his sway over us in morals be 
 correct, I do not see what he takes away at all. from our 
 private consciences. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone says that the Pope virtually claims 
 to himself the -wide domain of conduct, and there- 
 fore that we are his slaves: — let us see if another 
 illustration or parallel will not show this to be a 
 non-sequitur. Suppose a man, who is in the midst 
 of various and important lines of business, has a medi- 
 cal adviser, in whom he has, full confidence, as knowing 
 well his constitution. This adviser keeps a careful and 
 anxious eye upon him ; and, as an honest man, says to 
 him, "You must not go off on a journey to-day," or "you 
 -must take , some days' rest," or " you must attend to your 
 diet." Now, this is not a fair parallel to the Pope's hold upon 
 us ; for he does not speak to us personally but to all, and in 
 speaking definitively on ethical subjects, what he propounds 
 must relate to things good and bad in themselves, not to 
 things accidental, changeable, and of mere expedience ; so 
 that the argument which I am drawing from the case of a 
 medical adviser is a fortiori in its character. However, I say 
 that, though a medical man exercises a "supreme direction" 
 of those who put themselves under him, yet we do not there- 
 fore say, even of him, that he interferes with our daily con- 
 duct, and that we are his slaves. He certainly does thwart 
 many of our wishes and purposes ; in a true sense we are 
 at his mercy : he may interfere any day, suddenly ; he 
 will not, he cannot,, draw any line between his action and 
 our action. The same journey, the same press of business, 
 the same indulgence at table, which he passes over one 
 year, he sternly forbids the next. If Mr. Gladstone's 
 argument is good, he has a finger in all the commercial 
 transactions of the great merchant or financier who has 
 chosen him. But surely there is a simple fallacy here; 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 45 
 
 Mr. Grladstone asks us whether our political and civil life is 
 not at the Pope's mercy ; every act, he says, of at least 
 throe-quarters of the day, is under his control. No, not 
 every, but any, and this is aU the difference — that is, we have 
 no guarantee given us that there will never be a case, when 
 the Pope's general utterances may come to have a bearing upon 
 some personal act of ours. In the same way we are all of 
 us in this age under the control of public opinion and the 
 public prints ; nay, much more intimately so. Journalism 
 can be and is very personal ; and, when it is in the right, 
 morp powerful just now than any Pope ; yet we do not go 
 into fits, as if we were slaves, because we are under a sur- 
 veillance much more like tyranny than any sway, so indi- 
 rect, 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's general 
 authority over us in all things whatsoever. This count in 
 his indictment Mr. Gladstone founds on a passage in the 
 third chapter of the Pastor ceternus, in which the Pope, 
 speaking of the Pontifical jurisdiction, says : — " Towards 
 it (erga quam) pastors and people of whatsoever rite or dig- 
 nity, each and all, are bound by the duty of hierarchical 
 subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which 
 pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain 
 to the discipline and the regimen of the Church spread 
 throughout the world ; so that, unity with the Roman Pon- 
 tiff (both of communion and of profession of the same 
 faith) being preserved, the Church of Christ may be one 
 flock under one supreme Shepherd. This is the doctrine of 
 Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss 
 of faith and salvation." 
 
 On Mr. Gladstone's use of this passage I observe first, 
 that he leaves out a portion of it which has much to do 
 with the due understanding of it (ita ut custodita, &c.) 
 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's word, not his. Thirdly, 
 three times (at pp. 38, 41, and 42) does he make the Pope 
 say that no one can disobey him without risking his salva- 
 
46 DIVIDED ALLEaiANCE. 
 
 tion, whereas what the Pope does say is, that no one can 
 disbelieve the duty of obedience and unity without such 
 risk. And fourthly, in order to carry -out this false sense, or 
 rather to hinder its being evidently impossible, he mis- 
 translates, p. 38, " doctrina " (Haac est doctrina) by the 
 word " rule." 
 
 But his ' chief attack is directed to the words " dis- 
 ciplina" and "regimen." "Thus," he says, "are swept 
 into the Papal net whole multitudes of facts, whole sys- 
 tems of government,- prevailing, though in different de- 
 grees, in every country of the world," p. 4] . That is, disci- 
 plina and regimen are words of such lax, vague, indetermi- 
 nate meaning, that under them any matters can be slipped 
 in which may be required for the Pope's purpose in this or 
 that country, such as, to take Mr. Gladstone's instances, 
 blasphemy, poor-relief, incorporation and mortmain ; as- if 
 no definitions were contained in our theological and eccle- 
 siastical works of words in such common use, and as if in 
 consequence the Pope was at liberty to give them any sense 
 of his own. As to discipline, Fr. Perrone says " Discipline 
 comprises the exterior worship of God, the liturgy, sacred 
 rites, psalmody, the administration of the sacraments, the 
 canonical form of sacred elections and the institution 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 civil affairs. Perrone adds, 
 "Ecclesiastical discipline is a practical and external rule, 
 prescribed by the Church, in order to retain the faithful in 
 their faith, - and the more easily lead them on to eternal 
 happiness," Prcd. Theol. t.^, p. 381, 2nd ed., 1841. Thus 
 discipline is in no sense a political instrument, except as 
 the profession of our faith may accidentally become poli- 
 tical. In the same sense Zallinger : " The Roman Pontiff 
 has by divine right the power of passing universal laws per- 
 taining to the discipline of the Church ; for instance, to 
 divine worship, sacred rites, the ordination and manner of 
 life of the clergy, the order of the ecclesiastical regimen, 
 and the right administration of the temporal possessions of 
 the church."— 'Jiir, Eccles., lib. i., t. 2, § 121. 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 47 
 
 So too the word " regimen " has a definite meaning, 
 relating to a matter strictly internal to the Church; it 
 means government, or the mode or form of government, or 
 the course of government, and, as, in the intercourse of 
 nation with nation, the nature of a nation's government, 
 whether monarchical or republican, does not come into 
 question, so the constitution of the Church simply belongs 
 to its nature, not to its external action. There are indeed 
 aspects of the Church which involve relations toward secular 
 powers and to nations, as, for instance, its missionary office; 
 but regimen has relation to one of its internal characteris- 
 tics, viz., its form of government, whether we call it a pure 
 monarchy or with others a monarchy tempered by aris- 
 tocracy. Thus Tournely says, " Three kinds of regimen or 
 government are set down by philosophers, monarchy, aris- 
 tocracy, and democracy." Theol.,t. 2, p. 100. 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 of regimen 
 and discipline ? He tells us, in that portion of the sentence, 
 which, thinking it of no account, Mr. Gladstone has omitted. 
 The Pope tells us that all Catholics should recollect their 
 duty of obedience to him, not only in faith and morals, but 
 in such matters of regimen and discipline as belong to the 
 universal Church, " so that unity with the Eoman Pontiff, 
 both of communion and of profession of the same faith 
 being preserved, the Church of Christ may be one flock 
 under one siipreme Shepherd." I consider this passage to be 
 especially aimed at Nationalism : " Eecollect," the Pope 
 seems to say, " the Church is one, and that, not only in 
 faith and morals, for schismatics may profess as much as 
 this, but one, wherever it is, all over the world ; and not 
 only one, but one and the same, bound together by its one 
 regimen and discipline, and by the same regimen and 
 discipline, — the same rites, the same sacraments, the same 
 usages, and the same one Pastor ; and in these bad times 
 it is necessary for all Catholics to recollect, that this doc- 
 trine of the Church's individuality and, as it were, person- 
 ality, is not a mere received opinion or understanding, which 
 
48 DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 may be entertained or not, as we please, but is a funda- 
 mental, necessary truth." This being, speaking under cor- 
 rection, the drift of the passage, I observe that the words 
 "spread throughout the world" or "universal" are so far 
 from turning "discipline and regimen" into what Mr. 
 Gladstone calls a " net," that they contract the range of 
 both of them, not including, as he would have it, " mar- 
 riage" here, "blasphemy" there, and "poor-relief" in a third 
 country, but noting and specifying that one and the same 
 structure of laws, rites, rules of government, independency, 
 everywhere, of which the Pope himself is the centre and 
 life. And surely this is what every one of us will say with 
 the Pope, who is not an Erastian, and who believes that 
 the Gospel is no mere philosophy thrown upon the world 
 at large, no mere quality of mind and thought, no mere 
 
 'beautiful and deep sentiment or subjective 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 the 
 Pope's supreme authority, such as I have described it, in 
 its bearing towards- the CivU Power all over the world, — 
 various, as the Church is invariable, — a power which as 
 truly comes from God, as his own does. 
 
 That collisions can take place between the Holy See 
 and national governments the history of fifteen hundred 
 years teaches us ; also, that on both sides there may occur 
 
 ■ grievous mistakes. But my question all along lies, not with 
 " quicquid delirant reges," but with what, under the cir- 
 cumstance of such a collision, is the duty of those who are 
 both chddren of the Pope and subjects of the Civil Power. 
 As to the duty of the Civil Power, I have already inti- 
 mated in my first section, that it should treat the Holy 
 See as an independent sovereign, and if this rule had been 
 observed, the difiiculty to Catholics in a country not Catho- 
 lic, would be most materially lightened. Great Britain 
 recognizes and is recognized by the United States; the 
 two powers have ministers at each other's courts ; here is 
 one standing prevention of serious quarrels. Misunderstand- 
 ings between the two co-ordinate powers may arise; but there 
 
DIVIDKJJ ALLKGIANCE. 49 
 
 follow explanations, romovala of the causes of olfcuce, acts 
 of restitution. In actual collisions, there are conferences, 
 compromises, arbitrations. Now the point to observe here 
 is, that in such cases neither party gives up its abstract 
 rights, but neither party practically insists on them. And 
 each party thinks itself in the right in the particular case, 
 protests against any other view, but still concedes. Neither 
 party says, " I will not make it up with you, till you draw 
 an intelligible line between your domain and mine." I 
 suppose in the Geneva arbitration, though we gave way, 
 we still thought that, in our conduct in the American civil 
 war, we had acted within our rights. I say all this in 
 answer to Mr. Gladstone's challenge to us to draw the line 
 between the Pope's domain and the State's domain in civil 
 or political questions. Many a private American, I sup- 
 pose, lived in London and Liverpool, all through the cor- 
 respondence between our Foreign Office and the govern- 
 ment of the United States, and Mr. Gladstone never 
 addressed any expostulation to them, or told them they 
 had lost their moral freedom "because they took part with 
 their own government. The French, when their late war 
 began, did sweep their German sojourners out of France, 
 (the number, as I recollect, was very great,) but they were 
 not considered to have done themselves much credit by 
 such an act. When we went to war with Eussia, the Eng- 
 hsh in St. Petersburg made .an address, I think to the 
 Emperor, asking for his protection, and he gave it ; — I 
 don't suppose they pledged themselves to the Eussian view 
 of the war, nor would he have called them slaves instead 
 of patriots, if they had refused to do so. Suppose England 
 were to send her Ironclads to support Italy against the 
 Pope and his allies, English Catholics would be very indig- 
 nant, they would take part with the Pope before the war 
 began, they would use aU constitutional means to hinder 
 it ; but who believes that, when they were once in the 
 war, their action would be anything else than prayers and 
 exertions for a termination of it ? What reason is there 
 for saying that they would commit themselves to any step 
 of a treasonable nature, any more than loyal Germans, had 
 
 u 
 
50 DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 thfey beeti allowed to remain in France ? Yet; because 
 those Gerthatis would iidt relint[uisli their aUfegiance to 
 their cdiihtry, Mr. Grladstbhe, were he consistent, would 
 at oncfei sgnd them adrift. 
 
 Of course it will be said that in these Cases, thete is 
 no doublfe allegiance, alid agdn thai the Gferrnan govern- 
 ment did not bdll upon them, as the Popfei might call upon 
 flnglish Catholics, na,f Command theni, to take a side; 
 but my atgiihiferit at least shows this, that till there comes 
 to us a special, ditect command frorti the Pbpe to oppose 
 oiir country, 'We heed not be said to have " placed our loy- 
 alty and civil duty at the mei?cy of ahother," p. 45. It is 
 sttange that a grgftt ^tate^mail, versed in the new and true 
 philbsdphy tif compromise, instead of taking a practical 
 view of the actual sitttatibn, should proceed against us, like 
 a Professor in the ^fehools, with the " parade " of his " re- 
 lentless " (and may I add " rusty " ?) " logic," p. 23. 
 
 I a&y, till the Pope told us to exert ourselves for his 
 cause in A quarrel with this country, as in the time of the 
 Armada, we need not attend to an abstratit and hjrpotheti- 
 cal difflciilty : — then aiid not till then. I add, as before, 
 that, if the Holy See were frankly recognized by England, 
 as other Sovereign Powers dre, direct quarrels between the 
 two powers would in this age of the world be rare indeed ; 
 and stiii rarer, tlidir bedOming so energetic and urgeht as to 
 descend into the heart of the coinmiinity, and to disturb 
 the cdnscieiicdS and the family Unity of private Catholics. 
 
 But now, lastly, let lis suppose orte of these extraordi- 
 iiafy cases of ditfect ahd open hbstility between the two 
 powers actually to occur ; — hfere first, we must bring before 
 us the state of the case. Of course we inust recollect, on 
 the ond hand, that Catholics are not only bound to allegi- 
 ance to the British Crown, but have special privilege» as 
 citizens, can meet together, spdak and pass resolutibns, can 
 vote for members of Parliainent, and sit in Patliament, and 
 can hold office, all which are denied to foreigners sojourn- 
 ing amohg ns ; while on the other hatid there is the autho- 
 tity of the Pbpd, which, thbtigh not "absoMtd" even in 
 religious iriatters, as Mr. Gladstohe would have it to be, has 
 
DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE. 51 
 
 a call, a supreme call on our obedicucc Cettaiilly ill the 
 eVent of such a collision of jurisdictions, there fire caSes in 
 which we should obey the tope ahd disobey the State. 
 Suppose, for instance, an Abt was passed in Pai'liament, 
 bidding Catholics to attend I^rotestant servifee eVery week, 
 and the Pope distinctly told its not to do sd, for it was to 
 violate our duty to our faith : — I should obey thfe Pbpe and 
 not the Law. It will be said by Mr. Gladstdhe, that sudh a 
 case is impossible. I know it is ; but why ask me for What 
 I should do in extreme and utterly improbable cases such 
 as this, if my answer canhot help beating the character of 
 ah axiom ? It is not my fault that 1 ttiust deal in truistiis. 
 'Aie ferfcumferences of State jurisdiction and of Papal ate 
 for the Inost part quite apart from feacll other I there are 
 just some few degrees out of the 3 GO ih which they inter- 
 sect, ahd Mr. Gladstone, instead of lettihg these dases of 
 iiltersection alone, till they occur actually, asks mfe what I 
 should do, if I found myself placed in the space ihtersbcted. 
 If I must answer then, I should say distinctly that did the 
 State teU me in a question of worship to do what the Pope 
 told mfe not to do, I should obey the Pope, and shdUld 
 think it ho sin, if I used all the power and the influence t 
 possessed as a citizen to ptevent Silch a Bill passing the 
 Legislature, and to effect its repeal if it did. 
 
 But now, on the other hand, could the ease fever bCclir, in 
 Which I should act with the Civil Powet, and hot With the 
 Pope ? Now, here again, when I begin to imagine in- 
 stahces. Catholics will cry out (as Mi'. Gladstohfe in the 
 case I SUppdsed, cried out ih the interest of the other sidfe), 
 that instances never catl btjciir. I khdw they fcahhdt ; I 
 know the Pope never can do what I atil going tb stltipdS^ ; 
 hilt then, since it canhdt possibly hajpbeh ih fact, there is 
 no harm in just saying What I should (hypothetically) db, 
 if it did happen. I say then ih cfettain (impossible) bases 1 
 should side, not with the Pope, but With the Civil Powei\ 
 For instance, I believe members df Parliament, or bf the 
 Privy Council, take an oath that they WbUld hot ackhoW 
 ledge the right bf sucCfesSibn of a Princfe df Wales, if he 
 became a Cathdlic. I should not consider the Pope could 
 
.52 DIVIDED ALLKGTAXt'E. 
 
 release me from that oatli had I bound myself by it. Of 
 course, I might exert myself to the utmost 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 ; but I should be clear that, 
 though the Pope bade all Catholics to stand firm in one 
 phalanx for the Catholic Succession, still, while I remained 
 in my office, or in my place in Parliament, I could not do 
 as he bade me. 
 
 Again, were I actually a soldier or sailor in her 
 Majesty's service, and sent to take part in a war which I 
 could not in my conscience see to be unjust, and should 
 the Pope suddenly bid all Catholic soldiers and sailors to 
 retire from the service, here again, taking the advice of 
 others, as best I could, I should not obey him. 
 
 What is the use of forming impossible cases ? One 
 can find plenty of them in books of casuistry, with the 
 answers attached in respect to them. In an actual case, a 
 Catholic would, of course, not act simply on his own judg- 
 ment ; at the same time, there^ are supposable' cases in 
 which he would be obliged to go by it solely — viz., when 
 his conscience could not be reconciled to any of ihe courses 
 of action proposed to him by others. 
 
 In support of what I have been saying, I refer to one 
 or two weighty authorities : — 
 
 Cardinal Turrecremata says : — " Although it clearly 
 follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at 
 times, and command things which must not be done, that 
 we are not to be simply obedient to him in aU things, that 
 does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his 
 commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be 
 obeyed and in whatnot . '. it is said in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, ' One ought to obey God rather than man ;" 
 therefore, were the Pope to command anything against 
 Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the 
 Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, 
 he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands to be 
 passed over (despiciendus)," Summ. de Eccl, pp. 47, 8. 
 
 Bellarminc, speaking of resisting the Pope, says : — 
 
niVTDKD ALLEGIANCE. 5n 
 
 " In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is re- 
 quired. . . Therefore, as it is lawful to resist the Pope, 
 if he assaulted a man's person, so it Is lawful to resist him, 
 if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state (turbanti rem- 
 publicam), and much more if he strove to destroy the 
 Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing 
 what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will," 
 dejtom. Pont., ii. 29. 
 
 Archbishop Kenrick says : — " His power was given for 
 ■edification, not for destruction. If he uses it from the 
 love of domination (quod absit) scarcely will he meet ivith 
 obedient popidations." — Theol. Moral, t. i., p. 158. 
 
 When, then, Mr. Gladstone asks Catholics how they 
 can obey the Queen and yet obey the Pope, since it may 
 happen that the commands of the two authorities may 
 clash, I "answer, that it is my rule, both to obey the one 
 and to obey the other, but that there is no rule in this 
 world without exceptions, and if either the Pope or the 
 Queen demanded of me an " Absolute Obedience," he or she 
 would be transgressing the laws of human nature and 
 human society. I give an absolute obedience to neither. Fur- 
 ther, if ever this double allegiance pulled me in contrary 
 ways, which in this age of the world I think it never will, 
 then I should decide according to the particular case, which 
 is beyond all rule, and must be decided on its own merits, 
 I should look to see what theologians could do for me, 
 what the Bishops and clergy f^round me, what my confes- 
 sor ; what friends whom I revered : and if, after all, I 
 could not take their view of the matter, then I must rule 
 myself by my own judgment and my own conscience. But 
 aU this is hypothetical and unreal. 
 
 Here, of course, it will be objected to me, that I am, 
 after aU, having recourse to the Protestant doctrine of Private 
 Judgment ; not so ; it is the Protestant doctrine that Pri- 
 vate Judgment is our ordinary guide in religious matters, 
 but I use it, in the case in question, in very extraordinary 
 and rare, nay, impossible emergencies. Do not the highest 
 Tories thus defend the substitution of "William for James 
 TI. ? It is a great mistake to suppose our state in the 
 
54 DIVIDEB ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 Catholic Church is sq entirely subjected to rule and 
 system, that we are never thrown upon what is called by 
 divines "the Providence of God." The teaching and 
 assistance of the Church does not supply all conceivable 
 needs, but those which are ordinary ; thus, for instance, 
 the sacrament^ are necessary for dying in the grace of God 
 and hope oi heaven, yet, when they cannot be got, acts of 
 faith, hope, and contrition, with the desire for those aids 
 which the dying m.si.n has not, will convey in substance what 
 those aids ordinarily convey. And so a Catechumen, not yet 
 baptised, may be saved by his purpose and preparation to 
 receive the j-itq. And so, again, though " Out of the Church 
 there is no salvation," this does not hold in the case of 
 good men who are in invincible ignorance, And so it is 
 also in the case of our ordinations • Chillingworth and 
 Macaulay say that it is morally impossible that we should 
 h^-ve kept up for 1800 years an Apostolical succession of 
 ministers without some separation of the chain ; and we 
 in answer say that, however true this may be humanly 
 speaking, there has been a special Providence over the, 
 Church to secure it. Once more, how else could private 
 Catholics save their souls when there was a Pope and 
 Auti-popes, each severally claiming their allegiance ? 
 
55 
 
 § 3. Conscience. 
 
 It seems, then, that there are extreme cases in which 
 Conscience may come into collision with the word of a 
 Pope, and is to be followed in spite of that word. Now I 
 wish to place this proposition on a broader basis, acknowr 
 ledged by all Catholics, and, irj. order 'to do this satis- 
 factorily, as I began with the prophecies of Scripture and 
 the primitive Church, when I spoke of the Pope's preroga- 
 tives, so now I must begin with the Creator an4 His crea- 
 ture, when I would draw out the prerogatives and the 
 supreme authority of Conscience. 
 
 I say, then, that the Supreme Being is of a certain 
 character, which, expressed in human language, we call 
 ethical. He has the attributes of justice, truth, wisdom, 
 sanctity, benevolence and mercy, as eternal characteristics 
 in His Nature, the very Law of His being, identical with 
 Himself; and next, when He became Creator, He implanted 
 this Law, which is Himself, in the intelligence of all His 
 rational creatures. The Divine Law, then, is the rule of 
 ethical truth, the standard of right and wrong, a sovereign, 
 irreversible,, absolute authority in the presence of men and 
 Angels. " The eternal law," says St. Augustine, " is the 
 Divine Eeason ox Will of God, commanding the observ- 
 ance, forbidding the disturbance, of the natural order of 
 things." " The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an im- 
 pression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the 
 eternal law in the rational creature." (Gousset, Tfj,eol. 
 Moral, t. 1, pp. 24, &c.) This law, as apprehended in the 
 minds of individual men, is called "conscience;" ^nd, 
 though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellec- 
 tual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose 
 its character of being the Divine Law, but still has, as 
 such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. ^^ The 
 Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, " is the supreme rule 
 
56 CONSCIE>X'E. 
 
 of actions ; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that 
 man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God ; and 
 this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our con- 
 science. Hence it is never lawful to go against our con- 
 science ; as the fourth Lateran council says, ' Quidquid fit 
 contra conscientiam, sedificatadgehennam.'" 
 
 This, I know, is very different from the view ordinarily 
 taken of it, both by the science and literature, and by the 
 public opinion, of this day. It is founded on the doctrine 
 that conscience is the voice of God, whereas it is fashion- 
 able on all hands now to consider it 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. When Anglicans, Wesleyans, the 
 various Presbyterian sects in Scotland, and other denomi- 
 nations among us, speak of conscience, they mean what we 
 mean, the voice of God in the nature and heart of man, 
 as distinct from the" voice of Revelation. They speak of a 
 principle planted within us, before we have had any training, 
 though such training and experience is necessary for its 
 strength, growth, and due formation. They consider it a 
 constituent element of the mind, as our perception of other 
 ideas may be, as our powers of reasoning, as our sense of 
 order and the beautiful, and our other intellectual endow- 
 ments. They consider it, as Catholics consider it, to be 
 the internal witness rot both the existence and the law of 
 God. They think it holds of God, and not of man, as an 
 Angel walking on the earth would be no citizen or depen- 
 dent of the Civil Power. They would not allow, any more 
 than we do, that it could be resolved into any combination 
 of principles in our nature, more elementary than itself; 
 nay, though it may be called, and is, a law of the mind, 
 they would not grant that it was nothing more ; I mean, 
 that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of re- 
 sponsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise, with a vivid- 
 ness which discriminated it from all other constituents of 
 our nature. 
 
 This, nt least, is hpw I read the doctrine of Protestants 
 
CONSCIENCE. 57 
 
 as well as af Catholics. The rule and measure of duty is liot 
 utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest 
 number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the 
 pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, 
 nor a desire to be consistent with oneself ; but it is a mes- 
 senger from Him, who, both in nature . and in grace, 
 speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His 
 representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of 
 Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its 
 peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, 
 and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the 
 Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle 
 would remain and would have a swa)'. 
 
 Words such as these are idle empty verbiage to the great 
 world of philosophy now. All through my day there has 
 been a resolute warfare, I had almost said conspiracy, against 
 the rights of conscience, as I have described it. Literature 
 and science have been embodied in great institutions in 
 order to put it down. Noble buildings have been reared 
 as fortresses against that spiritual, invisible influence which is 
 too subtle for science and too profound for literature. 
 Chairs in Universities have been made the seats of an an- 
 tagonist tradition. Public writers, day after day, have 
 indoctrinated the minds of innumerable readers with theo- 
 ries subversive of its claims. As in Eoman times, and in 
 the middle age, its supremacy was assailed by the arm of 
 physical force, so now the intellect is put in operation to 
 sap the foundations of a power which the sword could 
 not destroy. We are told that conscience is but a twist in 
 primitive and untutored jnan ; that its dictate is an ima- 
 gination ; that the very notion of guiltiness, which that 
 dictate enforces, is simply irrrational, for how can there 
 possibly be freedom of -will, how can there be consequent 
 responsibility, in that infinite eternal network of cause and 
 effect, in which we helplessly lie? and what retribution 
 have w'e to fear, when we have had no real choice to do 
 good or evil ? 
 
 So much for. philosophers ; now let us see what is the 
 notion of copscience in this day in the popular mind, 
 
58 CONSCIENCE. 
 
 There, no more than in the intellectual world, does " con- 
 science" retain the old, true, Catholic ipeanijag of the 
 word. There too the idea, the presence, of a Moral Gover- 
 nor is fer away frona the use of it, frequent and emphatic 
 as that use of it is. , When men advocate 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 of thinking, speaking, writing, and acting, 
 according to their judgment or their humour, withcftit any 
 thought of God at all. They do not even pretend to go 
 hy any iftoral rule, but they demand, what they think is 
 an Englishman's prerogative, to be his own master in all 
 things, and to profess -what he pleases, asking no one's 
 leave, and accounting priest or -preacher, speaker or writer, 
 unutterably impertinent, who dares to say a word against 
 his going to perdition, if he like it, in his own way. Con- 
 science has rights because it has duties ; but in this age, 
 with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and 
 freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore 
 a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obli- 
 gations. It becomes a license to take up any or no reli- 
 gion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to 
 Churchj to go to chapel, to boast of being above all relir, 
 gions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Con- 
 science is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been 
 superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries 
 prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for 
 it, if they had. It is the right of self-will. 
 
 And now I shall turn aside for a moment to show how 
 it is that the Popes of our century have been misunder- 
 stood by English people, as if they really were speaking 
 against conscience in the true sense of the word, when 
 in fact they were speaking against it in the various false 
 senses, philosophical or popular, which in this day are put 
 upon the word. The present Pope, in his Encychcal of 
 1864, Quantd curd, speaks, (as will come before us in the 
 next section,) against "liberty of conscience," and he refers 
 to his predecessor, Gregory XVI., who, in his Mirari vos, 
 calls it a " deliramentum." It is a rule in formal ecclesias- 
 
CONSCIENCE. 59 
 
 tical proceedings, as I shfiU have occasion to notice lower 
 down, when books or authors are condemned, to use the 
 very wprds of the book or author, and to condemn the 
 words in that particular sense which they have in their 
 cpntext and their drift, not in the literal, not in the reli- 
 gions sense, such as the Pope might recognize, were they in 
 another book or author. Tq take a familiar parallel, among 
 many which occur daily. Protestants speak of the " Blessed 
 Reformation;" Catholics too talk of '^the Eeformation," 
 though they do not call it blessed. Yet every " reforma- 
 tion " ought, from the very meaning of the word, to be good, 
 not bad ; sp that Catholics seem to be implying a eulogy on 
 an event which, at the same time, they consider a surpassing 
 evil. Here then they are taking the word and using it in 
 the popular sense of it, not in the Catholic. They would 
 say, if they expressed their full meaning, " the so-called 
 reformation." In like manner, if the Pope condemned 
 " the Reformation," it would be utterly sophistical to say 
 in consequence that he had declared himself against all 
 reforms ; yet this is how Mr. Gladstone treats him, because 
 he speaks of (so-called) liberty of conscience. To make 
 this distinction clear, viz., between the Catholic sense of 
 the word f conscience," and that sense in which the Pope con- 
 demns it, we find in the Recueil des Allocutions, &c., the 
 words accompanied with quotation-marks, both in Pope 
 Gregory's and Pope Pius's Encyclicals, thus : — Gregory's, 
 " Ex hoe putidissimo ' indifferentismi ' fonte,'' (mind, "in- 
 differentismi ' is under quotation-marks, because the Pope 
 wiU not make himself answerable for so unclassical a word) 
 " absurda ilia fluit ac erronea sententia, seu potius delira- 
 mentum, asserendam esse ac vindicandam cuilibet 'liber- 
 tatem conscientise.''' And that of Pius, ''haud. timent 
 erroneam illam fovere opinionem a Gregorio XVI. delira- 
 mentum appellatam, nimirum ^ libertatem conscientige ' esse 
 proprium cujuscunque hominis jus." Both Popes cer- 
 tainly scoff at the "so-called liberty of conscience," but 
 there is no scoffing of any Pope, in formal documents 
 addressed to the faithful at large, at that most serious 
 doctrine, th§ right and the duty of following that Divine 
 
GO rOXSOIKX(!E. 
 
 Authority, the voice of conscience, on which in truth the 
 Church herself is built. 
 
 So indeed it is ; did the Pope speak against Conscience 
 in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal 
 act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet. 
 His very mission is to proclaim the moral law, and to pro- 
 tect and strengthen that " Light which enlighteneth every 
 man that cometh into the world." On the law of conscience 
 and its sacredness are founded both his authority in theory 
 and his power in fact. Whether this or that particular 
 Pope in this bad world always kept this great truth in 
 view in all he did, it is for history to tell. I am consider- 
 ing here the Papacy in its office and its duties, and in 
 reference to those who -acknowledge its claims. They are 
 not bound by a Pope's personal character or private acts, 
 l)ut by his formal teaching. Thus viewing his position, we 
 shall 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, 
 that he has gained his footing in the world and achieved 
 his success. It is his claim to come from the Divine Law- 
 giver, in order to elicit, protect, and enforce those truths 
 which the Lawgiver has sown in our very nature — it is this 
 and this only — that is the explanation of his length of life 
 more than antediluvian. The championship of the Moral 
 Law and of conscience is his raison d'itre. The fact of his 
 mission is the answer to the complaints of those who feel 
 the insufficiency of the natural light ; and the insufficiency 
 of that light is the justification of his mission. 
 
 All sciences, except the science of Religion, have their 
 certainty in themselves ; as far as they are sciences, the)' 
 consist of necessary conclusions from undeniable premisses, 
 or of phenomena manipulated into general truths by an 
 irresistible induction. But the sense of right and wrong, 
 which is the first element in religion, is so delicate, so fitful, 
 so easily puzzled, obscured, perverted, so subtle in its argu- 
 mentative methods, so impressible by education, so biassed 
 by pride and passion, so unsteady in its flight, that, in 
 
<-'OX,Sl'IENCE. (J 1 
 
 the struggle for existence amid various cxfrcisos and tri- 
 umplis of the human intellect, this sense is at once the 
 highest of all teachers, yet the least luminous ; and the 
 Church, the Pope, the Hierarchy are, in the Divine purpose, 
 the supply of an urgent demand. Natural Keligion, certain 
 as are its grounds and its doctrines as addressed to thought- 
 ful, serious minds, needs, in order that it may speak to 
 mankind with effect and subdue the world, to be sus- 
 tained and completed by Eevelation. 
 
 In saying all this, of course I must not be supposed 
 to be limiting the Eevelation of which the Church is the 
 keeper to a mere republication of the Natural Law ; but 
 still it is true, that, though Revelation is so distinct from 
 the teaching of nature and beyond it, yet it is not inde- 
 pendent of it, nor without relations towards it, but is its 
 complement, re-assertion, issue, embodiment, and interpre- 
 tation. The Pope, who comes of Revelation, has no juris- 
 diction over Nature. If, under the plea of his revealed 
 jjrerogatives, he neglected his mission of preaching truth, 
 justice, mercy, and peace, much more, if he trampled on 
 the consciences of his subjects, — if he had done so all along, 
 as Protestants say, then he could not have lasted all these 
 many centuries till now, so as to be made the mark of their 
 reprobation. Dean Milman has told us above, how faithful 
 he was to his duty in the medieval time, and how success- 
 ful. Afterwards, for a while the Papal chair was filled by 
 men, who gave- themselves up to luxury, security, and a 
 Pagan kind of Christianity ; and we all know what a moral 
 earthquake was the consequence, and how the Chiirch lost, 
 thereby, and has lost to this day, one-half of Europe. The 
 Popes could not have rfecovered from so terrible a catas- 
 trophe, as they have done, had they not returned to their 
 first and better ways, and the grave lesson of the past is in 
 itself the guarantee of the future. 
 
 Such is the relation of the ecclesiastical power to the 
 human conscience : — however, another view may be taken 
 of it. It may be ^aid that no one doubts that the Pope's 
 power rests on tnose weaknesses of human nature, that 
 religious sense, which in ancient days Lucretius noted as 
 
62 CONSCIENCE. 
 
 the cause of the worst ills of our race ; that he uses it dex- 
 terously, forming under shelter of it a false code of morals 
 for his own aggrandisement and tyranny ; knd that thus 
 conscience becomes his creature and his skVe, doing, £ts if 
 on a divine sanctiotL, his will ; so that in the &,bstract in- 
 deed ahd in idfea it is free, but never free in fact, never 
 able to take a flight of its own, independent of him, any 
 more than birds whose wings are clipped ; — ^mOreover, that, 
 if it were able to exert a will of its own, theii there would 
 erisue a collision nlofe unmanageable than that between 
 the Church ahd 'the State, as being in one and the same 
 subject matter— viz., religion* fof what wOtild become of 
 the Pope's " absolute authority," a^'Mr. Gladstone calls it, if 
 the private conscience had an absolute authority also ? 
 I wish to answer this important objection distinctly. 
 
 1. First, I am using the Word " conscience " in the high 
 sense in which I have already explained it ; not as a fancy 
 or an opinion, but as a dutifnl obedience to what claims 
 to be a divine voice, speaking within us, 
 
 2. Secondly I observe that eonscientie is not a judg- 
 ment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but 
 bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or 
 not done. " Conscience," says St. Thomas, " is the practical 
 judgnient or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hie 
 et tlunc is to be donS as being good, ox to be avoided as 
 evU;" Hence conscience cannot coine into direct collision with • 
 the Church's or the Pope's infalhbihty ; which is engaged 
 only on gehSral propositions, or the condemnation Of propo- 
 sitions simply jJarticUlar. 
 
 3. Next, I observe that, conscience being a practical dic- 
 tate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope's 
 authority only, when the Pope legislates, or gives par- 
 ticular ordersj and the like. But a Pope is not infallible 
 in his laws, nor in his commands, tior in his acts bf state, 
 nor in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it 
 be observed that the Vatican Council has left hini jUst as it 
 found him here, Mr. Gladstone's langitage dn this point is to 
 me quite unintelligible. Why; instead bf usihg Vagtle tstms, 
 does he not point out precisely the vety words by 
 
CONSCIBKCE. 63 
 
 which the Council has made the Pope in his acts infallible? 
 Instead of ^o doing, he assuttifes d conclusion which is alto- 
 gethei: Mse. He says, p. 34, "First comes the Pope's 
 infallibility;" theh in the next page he . insinuates that, 
 tinder his infallibility, coriie acts of exfcommunication, as if 
 the tope could not make mistakes in this field of action. 
 He sfiys, p. 35, " It may be sOught to plead that the Pope 
 does not Jiropose to invade the cbitntry, to seize Woolwicli, 
 oi" burn Poirtsmouth. He will only, at the worst, excom- 
 municate ojjpbnents. . . Is this a good answfer ? After 
 aU, even in the Middle Ages, it was not by the direct 
 action of fleets and armies of their own that the Popes 
 contended with kings who were refractory ; it was mainly by 
 interdicts," &c. What have exconiniunication and interdict 
 to do with Infallibility ? Was St. Peter infallible on that 
 cfccasion at Antioch when St. Patil withstood him I was St. 
 Victor infallible when he separated from his communion 
 the Asiatic Churches ? • or Libdrius when in like manner he 
 exdbnimunieated Athanasius 1 And, to coine to later times, 
 was Gregory XIIL, when he had a medal struck in honour 
 of the Bartholomew massacre ? or Paul IV. in his conduct 
 towards Elizabeth ? oi? . Sextus V. when he blessed the 
 Armada ? or Ul:ban Vlll. when he persecuted Galileo ? 
 No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infaUible 
 in these aCts. SinCe then infallibility alone could block the 
 exercise of conscience, and the Pope is not infallible in 
 that subject-niatter in which conscience is of supreme 
 authority, nci dead-lbck, sUch as is implied in the objection 
 which I am answering, can take place between conscience 
 and the Pope. 
 
 4. But, of cbutse, I have to say again, lest I should 
 be misundetstbod, that when I speak of Conscience, I mean 
 conscience truly so called. When it has the right of oppos- 
 ing the sUpteme, thbiigh not iiifallible Authority of the 
 Pope, it must be something more than that miserable Cotln- 
 teiiBit which, as I Have said above, now goes by the name; 
 If in a particular case it is to be taken as a sacred and 
 sdvereigh mbnitor, its dictate, in order td prevail against 
 the voice of the Pope, must Mloiir upon serioiis thought, 
 
6i t'O.N.SClliXCK. 
 
 prayer, and all available means of arriving at a right judg- 
 ment on the matter in question. And further, obedience 
 to the Pope is what is called "in possession ;" that is, the 
 onus probandi of establishing a case against him lies, as in 
 all cases of exception, on the side of conscience.- Unless 
 a man is able to say to himself, as in the Presence of God, 
 that he must not, and dare not, act upon the Papal in- 
 junction, he is bound to obey it, and would commit a great 
 sin in disobeying it. Prima facie it is his bounden duty, 
 even from a 'sentiment of loyalty, to believe the Pope 
 right and to act accordingly. He must vanquish . that 
 mean, ungenerous, selfish, vulgar spirit of his nature, 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, and rejoices, in a-moral and 
 prScticalmatter, to commence with scepticism. He must have 
 no wilful determination to exercise a right of thinking, say- 
 ing, doing just what he pleases, the question of truth and 
 falsehood, right and wrong, the duty if possible of obedi- 
 ence, the love of speaking as his Head speaks, and of standing 
 in all cases on his Head's side, being simply discarded. 
 Tf this necessary rule were observed, collisions between the 
 Pope's authority and the authority of conscience would be 
 very rare. On the other hand, in the fact that, after all, 
 in extraordinary cases, the conscience of each individual is 
 free, we have a safeguard and security, were security neces- 
 sary (which is a most gratuitous supposition), that no Pope 
 ever will be able, as the objection supposes, to create a false 
 conscience for his own ends. 
 
 Now, I shall end this part of the subject, for I have not 
 done with it altogether, by appealing to various of our 
 theologians in evidence that, in what I have been saying, 
 I have not misrepresented Catholic doctrine on these im- 
 portant points. 
 
 That is, on the duty of obeying our conscience at all 
 hazards. 
 
 I have already quoted the words which Cardinal Gous- 
 set has adduced from the Fourth Lateran ; that " He who 
 
CONSCIENCE. 65 
 
 acts against his conscience loses his soul." This dictum is 
 brought out with singular fulness and force in the moral 
 treatises of theologians. The celebrated school, known as 
 the Salmanticenses, or Carmelites of Salamanca, lays down 
 the broad proposition, that conscience is ever to be obeyed 
 whether it tells truly or erroneously, and that, whether the 
 error is the fault of the person thus erring or not.* They 
 say that this opinion is certain, and refer, as agreeing 
 with them, to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Caietan, 
 Vasquez, Durandus, Navarrus, Corduba, Layman, Escobar, 
 and fourteen others. Two of them even say this opinion is 
 de fide. Of course, if he is culpable in being in error, 
 which he would have escaped, had he been more in 
 earnest, for that error he is answerable to God, but 
 stUl he must act according to that error, while he is in 
 it, because he in full sincerity thinks the error to \q 
 truth. 
 
 Thus, if the Pope told the English Bishops to order 
 their priests to stir themselves energetically in favour of tee- 
 totaHsm, and a particular priest was fuUy persuaded that 
 abstinence from wine, &c., was practically a Gnostic 
 error, and therefore felt he could not so exert himself 
 without sin ; or suppose, there was a Papal order to hold 
 lotteries in each mission for some religious object, and a 
 priest could say in God's sight that he believed lotteries 
 to be morally wrong, that priest in either of these cases 
 would -commit a sin hie et nunc if he obeyed the Pope, 
 whether he was right or wrong in his opinion, and, if 
 wrong, although he had not taken proper pains to get at 
 the truth of the matter. 
 
 Busenbaum, of the Society of Jesus, whose work I 
 have akeady had occasion to notice, writes thus : — " A 
 heretic, as long as he judges his sect to be more or 
 equally deserving of belief, has no obligation to believe 
 [in the Church.] " And he continues, " When men who 
 
 * " Aliqui opinantur quod conscientia erronea uon obligat; Secun- 
 dam sententiam, et certain, asserentem esse peccatum discordare h con- 
 scientia' errone^, invincibili aut vincibili, tenet D. Thomas ; quern 
 sequuntur omnes Scholastici." — Theol Moral, t. v., p. 12, ed. 1728. 
 
 E 
 
66 ODNSCIEKCE. 
 
 have been brouglit up in heresy, are persuaded from boy- 
 hood that we impugn and attack the word of God, that 
 we are idolators, pestilent deceivers, and therefore are to be 
 shunned as pestilences, they cannot, while this persuasion 
 lasts, with a safe conscience, hear us," — t. 1, p. 54. 
 
 Antonio Corduba, a Spanish Franciscan, states the doc- 
 trine with still more point, because he makes mention of 
 Superiors. " In no manner is it lawful to act against con- 
 science, even though a Law, or a Superior commands it." 
 — Dt Conscient, p. 138. 
 
 And the French Dominican, Natalis Alexander : — " If, 
 in the judgment of conscience, though a mistaken con- 
 science, a man is persuaded that what his Superior com- 
 mands is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey." 
 —Theol t. 2, p. 32. 
 
 The word " Superior " certainly includes the Pope ; 
 but, to bring out this point clearly, Cardinal Jacobatius in 
 his authoritative work on Councils, which is contained in 
 Labbe's Collection of them, introduces the Pope by name : 
 — " If it were doubtful," he says, " whether a precept [of 
 the Pope] be a sin or not, we must determine thus : — that, 
 if he to whom the precept is addressed has a conscientious 
 sense that it is a sin and injustice, first it is his duty to 
 put off that sense ; but, if he cannot, nor conform himself 
 to the judgment of the Pope, in that case it is his duty to 
 follow his own private conscience, and patiently to bear it, 
 if the Pope punishes him." — lib. iv., p. 241. 
 
 Would it not be well for Mr. Gladstone to bring pas- 
 sages from our recognized authors as confirmatory of his 
 view of our teaching, as those yhich I have quoted are 
 destructive of it ? and they must be passages declaring, not 
 only that the Pope is ever to be obeyed, but that there are 
 no exceptions to the rule, for exceptions must be in aU 
 concrete matters. 
 
 I add one remark. Certainly, if I am obliged to bring 
 religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not 
 seem quite the thing) I shaU drink, — to the Pope, if you' 
 please, — still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope after- 
 wards. 
 
67 
 
 § 6. The Encyclical of 1864. 
 
 The subject of Conscience leads us to the Encyclical, 
 which is one of the special objects of Mr. Gladstone's 
 attack ; and to do justice to it, I must, as in other sections, 
 begin from an earlier date than 1864. 
 
 Modern Rome then is not the only place where the tradi- 
 tions of the oldEmpire,its principles,provisions,and practices, 
 have been held in honour ; they have been retained, they 
 have been maintained in substance, as the basis of European 
 civilization down to this day, and notably among ourselves. 
 In the Anglican establishment the king took the place of 
 the Pope ; but the Pope's principles kept possession. When 
 the Pope was ignored, the relations between Pope and king 
 were ignored too, and therefore we had nothing to do any 
 more with the old Imperial laws which shaped those rela- 
 tions ; but the old idea of a Christian Polity was still m force. 
 It was a first principle with England that there was one 
 true religion, that it was inherited from an earlier time, that 
 it came of direct Revelation, that it was to be supported to 
 the disadvantage, to say the least, of other religious, of pri- 
 vate judgment, of personal conscience. The Puritans held 
 these principles as firmly as the school of Laud. As to the 
 Scotch Presbyterians, we read enough about them in the 
 pages of Mr. Buckle. The Stuarts went, but still their 
 principles suffered no dethronement ; their action was re- 
 strained, but they were still in force, when this century 
 opened. 
 
 It is curious to see how strikingly in this matter the 
 proverb has been fulfilled, " Out of sight, out of mind." 
 Men of the present 'generation, born in the new civilization, 
 are shocked to witness in the abiding Papal system the 
 words, ways, and works of their grandfathers. In my own 
 lifetime has that old world been alive, and has gone its way. 
 Who will say that the plea of conscience was as effectual, 
 
68 THE ENC"SCLICAL OF 1864. 
 
 sixty years ago, as it is now in Englaiid, for the toleration 
 of every sort of fancy religion ? Had the Press always that 
 wonderful elbow-room which it has now 1 Might public 
 gatherings be held, and speeches made, and republicanism 
 avowed in the time of the Kegency, as is possible now 1 
 Were the thoroughfares open to monster processions at that 
 date, and the squares and parks at the mercy of Sunday 
 manifestations ? Could savants in that day insinuate what 
 their hearers mistook for atheism in scientific assemblies, 
 and artizans practise it in the centres of political 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 or public opinion would not suffer it ; 
 we may be wiser or better now, but we were then in the 
 wake of the Holy Roman Church, and had been so from the 
 time of the Eeformation. We were faithful to the tradition 
 of fifteen hundred years. AU this was called Toryism, and 
 men gloried in the name ; now it is called Popery and 
 revUed. 
 
 When I was young the State had a conscience, and the 
 Chief Justice of the day pronounced, not as a point of obso- 
 lete law, but as an energetic, living truth, that Christianity 
 was the law of the land. And by Christianity was meant 
 pretty much what Bentham calls Church-of- Englandisra, its 
 cry being the dinner toast, " Church- and king." Blackstone, 
 though he wrote a hundred years ago, was held, I believe, 
 as an authority, on the state of the law in this matter, up to 
 the beginning of this century. On the supremacy of Eeli- 
 gion he writes as follows, that is, as I have abridged him for 
 my purpose. 
 
 " The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, 
 &c., &c.,... these are the grand foundation of all judicial 
 oaths. AU moral evidence, all confidence in human veracity, 
 must be weakened by irreligion, and overthrown by infidelity. 
 Wherefore aU affronts to Christianity, or endeavours to 
 depreciate its efficacy, are highly deserving of human punish- 
 ment. It was enacted by the statute of William III, that if 
 any person educated in, and having made profession of, the 
 Christian religion, shall by writing, printing, teaching, or 
 
THE ENCYCLICAL OP 1864. 69 
 
 advised speaking, deny the Christian religion to be true, or 
 the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority," or again in 
 like manner, " if any person educated in the Christian reli- 
 gion shall by WTiting, &c , deny any one of the Persons of 
 the Holy Trinity to be God, or maintain that there are more 
 gods than one, he shall on the first offence be rendered in- 
 capable to hold any office or place of trust ; and for the 
 ,second, be rendered incapable of bringing any action, being 
 guardian, executor, legatee, or purchaser of lands, and shall 
 suffer three years' imprisonment without bail. To give 
 room, however, for repentance, if, within four months after 
 the first conviction, the delinquent will in open court pub- 
 licly renounce his error, he is discharged for that once from 
 all disabilities." 
 
 Again : " those who absent themselves from the divine 
 worship in the established Church, through total irreligion, 
 and attend the service of no other persuasion, forfeit one 
 shilling to the poor every Lord's day they so absent them- 
 selves, and £20 to the king, if they continue such a default 
 for a month together. And if they keep any inmate, thus 
 irreligiously disposed, in their houses, they forfeit £10 per 
 month." 
 
 Further, he lays down that " reviling the ordinances of 
 the Church is a crime of a much grosser nature than the 
 other of non- conformity ^ since it carries with it the utmost 
 indecency, arrogance, and ingratitude ;— indecency, by set- 
 ting up iirivate judgment in opposition to public ; arro- 
 gance, by treating with contempt and rudeness what has at 
 least a better chance to be right than the singular notions 
 of any particular man ; and ingratitude, by denying that 
 indulgence and liberty of conscience to the members of the 
 national Church, which the retainers to every petty conven- 
 ticle enjoy." 
 
 Once more : " In order to secure the established Church 
 against perils from non-conformists of all denominations, 
 infidels, Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and sectaries, there 
 are two bulwarks erected, called the Corporation and Test 
 Acts ; by the former, no person can be legally elected to 
 any office relating to the government of anv city or corpo- 
 
70 THE ENCYCLICAL OY 1864. 
 
 ration, unless, within a twelvemonth before, he has received 
 the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites 
 
 of the Chm'ch of England ; the other, called the Test 
 
 Act, directs all officers, civil and military, to make the 
 declaration against transubstantiation within six months 
 after their admission, and also within the same time to 
 receive the sacrament according to the usage of the Church 
 of England." The same test being undergone by all persons 
 who desired to be naturalized, the Jews also were excluded 
 from the privileges of Protestant churchmen. 
 
 Laws, such as these, of course gave a tone to society, to 
 all classes, high and low, and to the publications, periodical 
 or other, which represented public opinion. Dr. Watson, who 
 was the liberal prelate of his day, in his answer to Paine, 
 calls him (unless my memory betrays me) " a child of the 
 devil and an enemy of all righteousness." Cumberland, a 
 man of the world, (here again I must trust to the memory 
 of many past years) reproaches a Jewish writer for ingrati- 
 tude in assailing, as he seems to have done, a tolerant reli- 
 gious establishment ; and Gibbon, an unbeliever, feels him- 
 self at liberty to look down on Priestly, whose " Socinian 
 shield," he says, " has been repeatedly pierced by the mighty 
 spear of Horsley, and whose trumpet of sedition may at 
 length awake the magistrates of a free country." 
 
 Such was the position of free opinion and dissenting 
 worship in England till quite a recent era, when one after 
 another the various disabilities which I have been recount- 
 'ing, and many others besides,, melted away, like snow at 
 spring-tide ; and we all wonder how they could ever have 
 been in force. The cause of this great revolution is obvi- 
 ous, and its effect inevitable. Though I profess to be an 
 admirer of the principles now superseded, in themselves, 
 mixed up as they were with the imperfections and evils 
 incident to everything human, nevertheless I say frankly 
 I do not see how they could possibly be maintained in the - 
 ascendant. When the intellect is cultivated, it is as certain 
 that it will develop into a thousand various shapes, as that 
 infinite hues and tints and shades of colour will be reflected 
 from the earth's surface, when the sun-light touches it ; 
 
THE ENCYCLICAL OP 1864. 71 
 
 aiid in matters of religion the more, by reason of the ex- 
 treme subtlety and abstruseness of the mental action by 
 which they are determined. During the last seventy years, 
 first one class of the community, then another, has awakened 
 up to thought and opinion. Their multiform views on 
 sacred subjects necessarily affected and found expression in 
 the governing order. The State in past time had a con- 
 science ; George the Third had a conscience ; but there 
 were other men at the head of affairs besides him with con- 
 sciences, and they spoke for others besides themselves, and 
 what was to be done, if he could not work without them, 
 and they could not work with him, as far as religious ques- 
 tions came up at the Council-board ? This brought on a 
 dead-lock in the time of his successor. The ministry of the day 
 could not agree together in the policy or justice of keeping up 
 the state of things which Blackstone describes. The State 
 ought to have a conscience ; but what if it happen to have 
 half-a-dozen, or a score, or a hundred, in religious matters, 
 each different from each ? I think Mr. Gladstone has 
 brought out the difficulties of the situation himself 
 in his Autobiography. No government could be formed, 
 if religious unanimity was a sine qua non. What 
 then was to be done ? As a necessary consequence, 
 the whole theory of Toryism, hitherto acted on, came 
 to pieces and went the way of all flesh. This was in 
 the nature of things. Not a hundred Popes could have 
 hindered it, unless Providence interposed by an effusion of 
 divine grace on the hearts of men, which would amount to 
 a miracle, and perhaps would- interfere with human respon- 
 sibility. The Pope has denounced the sentiment that he 
 ought to come to terms with " progress, liberalism, and 
 the new civilization." I have no thought at all of dis- 
 puting his words. I leave the great problem to the future. 
 God will guide other Popes to act when Pius goes, as He 
 has guided him. No one can dislike the democratic prin- 
 ciple more than I do. No one mourns, for instance, more 
 than I, over the state of Oxford, given up, alas ! to 
 "liberalism and progress," to the forfeiture of her great medie- 
 val motto, "Dominus illuminatio mea," and witha consequent 
 
72 THE ENCYCLICAL OF 1864. 
 
 call on her to go to Parliament or the Heralds CoUege for a 
 new one ; but what can we do ? All I know is, that Tory- 
 ism, that is, loyalty to persons, " springs immortal in the 
 human breast ;" that Eeligion is a spiritual loyalty ; and 
 that Catholicity is the only divine form of Religion. And 
 thus, in centuries to come, there may be found out some 
 way of uniting what is free in the new structure of society 
 with what is authoritative in the old, without any base 
 compromise with " Progress " and " Liberalism." . 
 
 But to return : — I have noticed the great revolution in 
 the state of the Law which has taken place since 1828 for 
 this reason : — to suggest that Englishmen, who within fifty 
 years kept up the Pope's system, are not exactly the par- 
 ties to throw stones at the Pope for keeping it up still. 
 
 But I go further : — in fact the Pope has not said on 
 this ■ subject of conscience (for that is the main subject in 
 question) what Mr. Gladstone makes him say. On this 
 point I desiderate that fairness in his Pamphlet which we 
 have a right to expect from him ; and in truth his unfair- 
 ness is wonderful. He says, pp. 15, 16, that the Holy See 
 has " condemned " the maintainers of " the Liberty of the 
 Press, of conscience, and of worship." Again, that the 
 " Pontiff has condemned free speech, free writing, a free 
 press, toleration of non- conformity, liberty of conscience," 
 p. 42. Now, is not this accusation of a very wholesale 
 character? Who would not understand it to mean that 
 the Pope had pronounced a universal anathema against 
 all these liberties in toto, and that English law, on the 
 contrary, allowed those liberties in toto, which the Pope 
 had condemned. 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 admits of de- 
 grees. Blackstone is careful to show how much more liberty 
 the law allowed to the subject in his day, how much less severe 
 it was in its safeguards against abuse, than ithad usedtobe ; but 
 he never pretends that it is conceivable that liberty should 
 have no boundary at all. The very idea of political society 
 is based upon the principle that each member of it gives 
 
THE ENCYCLICAL OP 1864. 73 
 
 up a portion of his natural liberty for advantages which are 
 greater than that liberty ; and the question is, whether the 
 Pope, in any act of his which touches us Catholics, in any 
 ecclesiastical or theological statement of his, has propounded 
 any principle, doctrine, or view, which is not carried out in 
 fact at this time in British courts of law, and would not be 
 conceded by Blackstone. I repeat, the very notion of 
 human society is a relinquishment, to a certain point, of 
 the liberty of its members individually, for the sake of a 
 common security. Would it be fair on that account to say 
 that the British Constitution condemns all liberty of con- 
 science in word and in deed ? 
 
 We Catholics, on our part, are denied liberty of our 
 religion by English law in various ways, but we do not 
 complain, because a limit must be put to even innocent 
 liberties, and we acquiesce in it for the social compen- 
 sations which we gain on the whole. Our school boys 
 cannot play cricket on Sunday, not even in country 
 places, for fear of being taken before a magistrate and 
 fined. In Scotland we cannot play the piano on Sundays, 
 much less the fiddle, even in our own rooms. I have had 
 before now a lawyer's authority for saying that a religious 
 procession is Ulegal even within our own premises. TiU the 
 last year or two we could not caU our Bishops by the titles 
 which our Eeligion gave them. A mandate from the Home 
 Secretary obliged us to put off our cassocks when we went 
 out of doors. We are forced to pay rates for the establish- 
 ment of secular schools which we cannot use, and then we 
 have to find means over again for building schools of our 
 own. Why is not aU this as much an Outrage on our con- 
 science as the prohibition upon Protestants at Eome, 
 Naples, and Malaga, before the late political changes — not 
 to hold their services in a private, or in the ambassador's 
 house, or outside the walls, — but to flaunt them in public 
 and thereby to irritate the natives ? Mr. Gladstone seems to 
 think it is monstrous for the Holy See to sanction such a 
 prohibition. If so, may we not call upon him tQ gain for 
 us in Birmingham " the free exercise of our religion," in 
 making a circuit of the streets in our vestments, and chant- 
 
74 THB ENCYCLICAL OP 1864, 
 
 ing the " Pange Lingua," and the protectian of the police 
 against the mob which would be sure to gather round us, 
 — particularly since we are English born ; but the Protes- 
 tants at Malaga or Naples were foreigners.* But we have 
 the good sense neither to feel it a hardship, nor to protest 
 against it as a grievance. 
 
 But now for the present state of English Law : — I say 
 seriously Mr. Grladstone's accusation of us avails quite as 
 much against Blackstone's four volumes, against laws in 
 general, against the social contract, as against the Pope. 
 What the Pope has said, I will show presently : first let us 
 see what the statute book has to tell us about the present 
 state of English liberty of speech, of the press, and of 
 worship. 
 
 First, as to public speaking and meetings : — do we allow 
 of seditious language, or of insult to the sovereign, or his 
 representatives ? Blackstone says, that a misprision is com- 
 mitted against him by speaking or writing against him, 
 cursing or wishing him ill, giving out scandalous stories 
 concerning him, or doing anything that may tend to lessen 
 him in the esteem of his subjects, may weaken his govern- 
 ment, or may raise jealousies between him and his people. "^ 
 Also he says, that " threatening and reproachful words to 
 any judge sitting in the Courts " involve " a high mispri- 
 sion, and have been punished with large fines> imprison- 
 ment, and corporal punishment," And we may recollect 
 quite lately the judges of the Queen's Bench prohibited 
 public meetings and speeches which had for their object the 
 issue of a case then proceeding in Court. 
 
 Then, again, as to the Press, there are two modes of 
 bridling it, one before the printed matter is published, the 
 other after. The former is the method of censorship, the latter 
 that of the law of libel. Each is a restriction on the liberty 
 of the Press. We prefer the latter, I never heard it said 
 that the law of libel was of a mild character ; and I never 
 heard that the Pope, in any Brief or Eescript, had insisted 
 on a censorship, 
 
 * "Hominibua illuc immigrantibus." These words Mr. Gladstone 
 omits, also he translates " publieum" "free," pp. 17, 18. 
 
THE ENCYCLICAL OP 1864. 75 
 
 Lastly, liberty of worship : as to the English restriction 
 of it, we have had a notable example of it in the last 
 session of Parliament, and we shall have still more edify- 
 ing illustrations of it in the next, though not certainly 
 from Mr. G-ladstone. The ritualistic party, in the free 
 exercise of their rights, under the shelter of the Anglican 
 rubrics, of certain of the Anglican offices, of the teaching 
 of their great divines, and of their conscientious interpre- 
 tation of their Articles, have, at their own expense, built 
 churches for worship after their own way ; and, on the 
 other hand. Parliament and the newspapers are attempting 
 to put them down, not so much because they are acting 
 against the tradition and the law of the Establishment, 
 but because of the national dislike and dread of the prin- 
 ciples and doctrines which their worship embodies. 
 
 When Mr. Gladstone has a right to say broadly, by 
 reason of these restrictions, that British law and the British 
 people condemn the maintainers of liberty of conscience, of 
 the press, and of worship, in toto, then may he say so of 
 the Encyclical, or account of those words which to him have 
 so frightful a meaning. 
 
 Now then let us see, on the other hand, what the 
 proposition is, the condemnation of whichleads him to say, that 
 the. Pope has unrestrictedly " condemned those who main- 
 tain the liberty of the Press, the liberty of conscience and 
 of worship, and the liberty of speech," p. 16, — has " con- 
 demned free speech, free writing, and a free press," p. 42. 
 The condemned proposition speaks as follows : — 
 
 " Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherent 
 right of aU men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in every 
 rightly constituted society. 3. It is a right to-all sorts of 
 liberty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it ought not to 
 be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical or civil, as far 
 as public speaking, "printing, or any other public manifes- 
 tation of opinions is concerned." 
 
 Now, is there any government on earth that could stand 
 the strain of such a doctrine as this ? It starts by taking 
 for granted that there are certain Eights of man ; Mr. 
 Gladstone so considers, I believe ; but other deep thinkers 
 
76 THE ENCfYCLICAL OF 1864. 
 
 of the day are quite of another opinion ; however, if the 
 doctrine of the proposition is true, then the right of con- 
 science, of which it speaks, being inherent in man, 
 is of universal force — that is, all over the world — also, 
 says the proposition, it is a right which must be recog- 
 nized by all rightly constituted governments. Lastly, 
 what is the right of conscience thus inherent in our 
 nature, thus necessary for all states ? The proposition 
 tells us. It is the liberty of every one to give public utter- 
 ance, in every possible shape, by every possible , channel, 
 without any let or hindrance from God or man, to all his 
 notions whatsoever* 
 
 Which of the two in this matter is peremptory and 
 sweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesis 
 himself, or the Pope who has condemned what he has 
 uttered ? Who is it who would force upon the world a 
 universal ? All that the Pope has done is to deny a uni- 
 versal, and what a universal ! a universal liberty to all men 
 to say out whatever doctrines they may hold by preaching, 
 or by the press, uncurbed by church or civil power. Does 
 not this bear out what I said in the foregoing section 
 of the sense in which Pope Gregory denied a "liberty 
 of conscience ? " It is a liberty of self-will. What 
 if a man's conscience embraces- the duty of regicide? 
 or infanticide ? or free love ? You may say that in 
 England the good sense of the nation would stifle and 
 extinguish such atrocities. True, but the proposition says 
 that it, is the very right of every one, by nature, in every 
 well constituted society. If so, why have we gagged the Press 
 in Ireland on the ground of its being seditious ? Why is not 
 India brought within the British constitution ? It seems 
 a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he calls such a 
 doctrine of conscience deliramentum : of all conceivable 
 absurdities it is the wildest and most stupid. Has Mr. 
 
 * " Jus civibus inesse ad omnimodam libei'tatem, nulld vel eccle- 
 siastica vel civili aiictoritate coarctandam, quo suoa conceptus quoscunque 
 sive voce, sive typis, sive alid ratione, palam puhliceque manifestare ao 
 declarare valeant." . 
 
THE ENCYCLICAL OF 1864. 77 
 
 Gladstone really no better complaint to make against the 
 Pope's condemnations than this ? 
 
 Perhaps he will say, Why should the Pope take the 
 trouble to condemn what is so wild ? But he does : and 
 to say that he condemns something which he does not 
 condemn, and then to inveigh against him on the ground 
 of that something else, is neither just nor logical. 
 
78 
 
 § 7. The Syllabus. 
 
 Now I come to the Syllabus of " Errors," the publica- 
 tion of which has been exclaimed against in England as 
 such singular enormity, and especially by Mr. Gladstone. 
 The condemnation of theological statemejits which militate 
 against the Catholic Faith is of long usage in the Church. 
 Such was the condemnation of the heresies of Wickliffe in 
 the Council of Constance ; such those of Huss, of Luther, 
 of Baius, of Jansenius ; such the condemna'^ions which 
 were published by Sextus IV., Innocent XL, Clement XL, 
 Benedict XIV., and other Pcpes. Such condemnations 
 are no invention of Pius IX. 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 ; the French 
 translation caUs it a "Resume;" — a Collection of what ? 
 I have abeady said, of propositions, — propositions which the 
 Pope in his various Allocutions, Encyclicals, and like docu- 
 ments, since he has been Pope, has pronounced to be 
 Errors. Who gathered the propositions out of these Papal 
 documents, and put them together in one ? We do not 
 know ; all we know is that, by the Pope's command, this 
 Collection of Errors was sent by his Foreign Minister to 
 the Bishops. He, Cardinal Antonelli, sent to them at the 
 same time the Encyclical of December, 1864, which is a 
 document of dogmatic authority. The Cardinal says, in 
 his circular to them, that the Pope ordered him to do so. 
 The Pope thought, he says, that perhaps th^ Bishops had 
 not seen some of his Allocutions, and other authoritative 
 letters and speeches of past years ; in consequence the Pope 
 had had the Errors which, at one time or other he had 
 therein condemned, brought together into one, and that for 
 the use of the Bishops. 
 
 Such is the Syllabus and its object There is not a word 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 79 
 
 in it of the Pope's own writing ; there is nothing in it at all 
 but the Erroneous Propositions themselves — that is, ex- 
 cept the heading "A Syllabus, containing the principal 
 Errors of our times, which are noted in the Consistorial 
 Allocutions, in the Encyclicals, and in other 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 Allocution, Encyclical, or other document in 
 which it is condemned. 
 
 The Syllabus, then, is to be received with profound sub- 
 mission, as having been sent by the Pope's authority to 
 the Bishops of the world. It certainly has indirectly his 
 , extrinsic sanction; but intrinsically, and viewed in itself, it is 
 nothing more than a digest of certain Errors made by an ano- 
 nymous writer. There would be nothing on the face of it, to 
 show that the Pope had ever seen it, page by page, unless the 
 " Imprimatur " implied in the Cardinal's letter had been an 
 evidence of this. It has no mark or seal put upon it which 
 gives it a direct relation to the Pope. Who is its author ? 
 Some select theologian or high official doubtless ; can it be 
 Cardinal Antonelli himself ? No surely : any how it is not 
 the Pope, and I do not see my way to accept it for what it 
 is not. I do not speak as if I had any difficulty in re- 
 cognizing and condemning the Errors which it catalogues, did 
 the Pope himself bid me ; but he has not as yet done so, and 
 he cannot delegate his Magisterium to another. I wish with 
 St. Jerome to " speak with the Successor of the Fisherman 
 and the Disciple of the Cross." I assent to that which the 
 Pope propounds in faith and morals, but it must" be he 
 speaking officially, personally, and immediately, and not 
 any one else, who has a hold over me. The Syllabus is not 
 an official act, because it is not signed, for instance, with 
 "Datum Romse, Pius P. P. IX," or "sub annulo Pisca- 
 toris," or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does 
 not address his " Venerabiles Fratres," or " Dilecto Fiho," 
 or speak as " Pius Episcopus ;" it is not an immediate, for it 
 comes to the Bishops only through the Cardinal Minister of 
 State. 
 
 If, indeed, the Pope should ever make that anonymous 
 
80 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 compilation directly his own, then of course I should bow 
 to it and accept it as strictly His. He might have done 
 so ; he might do so still ; again, he might issue a fresh list 
 of Propositions in addition,- and pronounce them to be 
 Errors, and I should take that condemnation to be of dog- 
 matic authority, because I believe him appointed by his 
 Divine Master to determine in the detail of faith and 
 morals what is true and what is false. But such an act of 
 his he would formally authenticate ; he would speak in 
 his own name, as Leo X. or Innocent XI. did, by BuU or 
 Letter Apostolic. Or, if he wished to speak less authorita- 
 tively, he would speak through a Sacred Congregation ; 
 but the Syllabus makes no claim to be acknowledged as the 
 word of the Pope. Moreover, if the Pope drew up that 
 catalogue, as it may be called, he would discriminate the 
 errors one from another, for they greatly differ in gravity, 
 and he would guard against seeming to say that all intel- 
 lectual faults are equah What gives cogency to this re- 
 mark is, that a certain number of Bishops and theologians, 
 when a Syllabus was in contemplation, did wish for such a 
 formal act on the part of the Pope, and in consequence 
 they drew up for his consideration the sort of document 
 on which, if he so willed, he might suitably stamp his 
 infallible sanction ; but he did not accede to their prayer. 
 This composition is contained iu the " Recueil des Allocu- 
 tions," &c., and is far more than a mere " collection of 
 errors." It is headed, " Theses ad Apostolicam Sedem de- 
 latse cum censuris," &c., and each error from first to last 
 has the ground of its condemnation marked upon it. There 
 are sixty- one of them. The first is " impia, injuriosa reli- 
 gioni," &c. ; the second is '^ complexive sumpta, falsa," &c. ; 
 the third the same ; the fourth " hseretica," and so on, the 
 epithets affixed having a distinct meaning, and denoting 
 various degrees of error. Such a document, unlike the 
 Syllabus, has a substantive character. 
 
 Here I am led to interpose a remark ; —it is plain, then, 
 that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, 
 who would, if they could, go much further in the way of 
 assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 81 
 
 overshadows him, wills or permits : so that his acts and his 
 words on doctrinal subjects must be carefuUy scrutinized 
 and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. 
 Utterances which must be received as coming from an In- 
 fallible Voice are not made every day, indeed they are very 
 rare ; and those which are by some persons affirmed or 
 assumed to be such, do not always turn out what they are 
 said to be ; nay, even such as are really dogmatic must be 
 read by definite rules and by traditional principles of inter- 
 pretation, which are as cogent and unchangeable as the Pope's 
 own decisions themselves. What I have to say presently will 
 illustrate this truth ; meanwhile I use the circumstance 
 which has led to my mentioning it, for another purpose 
 here. When intelligence which we receive from Eome 
 startles and pains us from its seemingly harsh or extreme 
 character, let us learn to have some little faith and patience, 
 and not take for granted that all that is reported is the 
 truth. There are those who wish and try to carry measures, 
 and declare they have carried, when they have not carried 
 them. How many strong things, for instance, have been 
 reported with a sort of triumph on one side and with irri- 
 tation and despondency on the other, of what the Vatican 
 Council has done ; whereas the very next year after it, 
 •Bishop Fessler, the Secretary General of the Council, brings 
 out his work on " True and False Infallibility,"* reducing 
 what was said to be so monstrous to its true dimensions. 
 When I see all this going on, those grand lines always rise 
 on my lips in the Greek Tragedy — 
 
 " Ou;roT£ Tav Aios apfioviav 
 
 Ovarlov Trapi^iatTi /iovXai," — 
 
 and still more the consolation given us by a Divine Speaker 
 that, though the swelling sea is so threatening to look at, 
 yet there is One who rules it and says, " Hitherto shalt 
 thou come and no further, and here shall thy proud waves 
 be stayed !" 
 
 But to return :— the Syllabus then has no dogmatic force ; 
 it addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, 
 
 * A translation of this important work will in a few days be published 
 by Messrs. Burns and Oateg, 
 
 F 
 
82 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, 
 not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse 
 to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions 
 and the like,) to which the Syllabus pointedly refers. More- 
 over, when we turn to those documents, which are authori- 
 tative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo 
 of the Apostolic Voice ; for, in matters in which wording is 
 so important, it is not an exact transcript of the words of 
 the Pope, in its account of the errors condemned, — ^just as 
 Would be natural in what is an index for reference. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone indeed wishes to unite the Syllabus to 
 that Encyclical which so moved him in December, 1864, 
 and says that the Errors noted in the Syllabus are aU 
 brought under the infallible judgment pronounced on cer- 
 tain errors specified in the Encyclical. This is an untenable 
 assertion. He says of the Pope and of the Syllabus, p. 20 : 
 " These are not mere opinions of the Pope himself, nor even 
 are they opinions which he might paternally recommend to 
 the pious consideration of the faithful. With the promul- 
 gation of his opinions is unhappily combined, in the Ency- 
 clical Letter which virtually, though not expressly, includes 
 the tohole, a command to all his spiritual children (from 
 which command we, the disobedient children, are in no way 
 excluded) to hold them," and he appeals in proof of this to . 
 the language of the Encyclical ; but let us see what that 
 language is. The Pope speaks thus, as Mr. Gladstone himself 
 quotes him : " All and each of the wrong opinions and doc- 
 trines, meyitioned one by one in this Encyclical (liisce litteris\ 
 by our Apostolical authority, we reprobate, &c. " He says, as 
 plainly as words can speak, that the wrong opinions which 
 in this passage he condemns, are specified in the Encychcal, 
 not^ outside of it ; and, when we look into the earlier part 
 of it, there they are, about ten of them ; there is not a 
 single word in the Encyclical to show that the Pope in it 
 was alluding to the Syllabus. The Syllabus does not exist 
 as far as the language of the Encyclical is concerned. This' 
 gratuitous assumption seems to me marvellously unfair. 
 
 The only connexion between the Syllabus and the Ency- 
 clical is one external to them both, the connexion of time and 
 
THE SYLLABUS, 83 
 
 organ ; Cardinal Antonelli sending them both to the Bishops 
 with the introduction of one and the same letter. In that 
 letter he speaks to the Bishops thus, as I paraphrase his 
 words :* — The Holy Father sends you by me a list, which 
 he has caused to be drawn up and printed, of the errors 
 which he has in various formal documents, in the course of 
 the last eighteen years, condemned. At the same time, 
 and with that list of errors, he is sending you a new 
 Encyclical, which he has 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, of the 
 Pope's Encyclical or Allocutional condemnations, an index 
 raisonne, — not alphabetical, as is found, for instance, in Bel- 
 larmine's or Lambertini's works, — drawn up by the Pope's 
 orders, out of his paternal care for the flock of Christ, and 
 c6nveyed to the Bishops through his Minister of State. But 
 we can no more accept it as de fide, as a dogmatic docu- 
 ment, than other index or table of contents. Take a parallel 
 case, mutatis mutandis : Counsel's opinion being asked on 
 a point of law, he goes to his law books, writes down his 
 answer, and, as authority, refers his client to 23 George 
 III., c. 5, s. 11 ; 11 Victoria, c. 12, s. 19, and to Thomas v. 
 Smith, Att.-Gen. v. Eoberts, and Jones v. Owen. Who would 
 say that that sheet of foolscap had force of law, when it 
 was nothing more than a list of references to the Statutes 
 of the Eealm, or Judges' decisions, in which the Law's 
 voice really was found ? 
 
 The value of the Syllabus, then, lies in its references ; 
 but of these Mr. Gladstone has certainly availed himself 
 very little. Yet, in order to see the nature and extent of 
 
 * His actual words (abridged) are these ; — "Notre T.S.S. Pius IX. 
 n'a jamais ceas6 de proscrire les principales erreurs de notre trls-malheu- 
 reuse Ipoque, par ses Eacycliques, et par ses Allocutions, &c. Mais, 
 comme il peut arriver que tous les actes pontificaux ne perviennent pas 
 ^ chacuu des Ordinaires, le meme Souverain Pontife a voulu que Ton 
 redige^t un Syllabus de ces memes erreurs, destine a etre envoyS S. tous 
 les EvSques, (fee. II m'a ensuite ordonn6 de veiller a ce que ce Syllabus 
 imprime futenvoyS a V.E.R. dans ce temps oil le m^me Souverain Pon- 
 tife a juge a propos d'Icrire nn autre Lettre Encyclique. Ainsi, je 
 m'empresse d'envoyer a V.E. ce Syllabus avec ces Lettres." 
 
84 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 the condemnation passed on any proposition of the Sylla- 
 bus, it is absolutely necessary to turn out the passage of 
 the Allocution, Encyclical, or other document, in which the 
 condemnation is found ; for the wording of the errors which 
 the Syllabus contains is to be interpreted by its references. 
 Instead of this Mr. Gladstone uses forms of speech about 
 the Syllabus which only excite in me fresh wonder. In- 
 deed, he speaks upon these ecclesiastical subjects gene- 
 rally in a style in which priests and parsons are accused 
 by their enemies of speaking concerning geology. For 
 instance, the Syllabus, as we have seen, is a list or 
 index ; but he calls it " extraordinary declarations," p. 21. 
 How can a list of Errors be a series of Pontifical " Declara- 
 tions r 
 
 However, perhaps he would say that, in speaking of 
 " Declarations," he was referring to the authoritative state- 
 ments which I have accused him of neglecting. With all 
 my heart ; but then let us see how those statements fulfil the 
 character he gives of them. He caUs them " Extraordinary 
 declarations on personal and private duty," p. 21, and "strin- 
 gent condemnations," p. 1 9 . Now, I certainly must grant that 
 some are stringent, but only some. One of the most severe 
 that I have found among them is that in the Apostolic 
 Letter of June 10, 1851, against some heretic priest out 
 at Lima, whose .elaborate work in six volumes against the 
 Curia Eomana, is pronounced to be in its various statements 
 scandalous, rash, false, schismatical, injurious to the Eoman 
 Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils impious and here- 
 tical." It well deserved to be called by these names, 
 which are not terms of abuse, but each with its defi- 
 nite meaning ; and, if Mr Gladstone, in speaking of 
 the cqndemnations, had confined his epithet " stringent'" 
 to it, no one would have complained of him. And another 
 severe condemnation is that of the works of Professor 
 Nuytz. But let us turn to some other of the so-called 
 condemnations, in order to ascertain whether they answer 
 to his general description of them. 
 
 1. For instance, take his own 16 th (the 77th of the 
 " erroneous Propositions ") that, " It is no longer expedient 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 85 
 
 that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclu- 
 sion of all others." When we turn to the Allocution, which is 
 the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we 
 find there ? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of 
 States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, defi- 
 nitely Spain ; secondly, he was not speaking of the propo- 
 sition in question directly, or dogmatically, or separately, 
 but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the 
 Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, 
 that he was not referring to any theological work containing 
 it, nor contemplating any proposition ; nor, on the other 
 hand, using any word of condemnation at all, nor using any 
 harsher terms of the Government in question than those of 
 " his wonder and bitterness." And again, taking the Pope's 
 remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of complaint 
 to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in their legisla- 
 tion upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers and others, 
 that the Pope does merely not think it expedient for every 
 state^rom. this timejorth to tolerate every sort of religion 
 on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once ? for 
 this is all that he denies. As in the instance in the fore- 
 going section, he does but deny a universal, which the 
 " erroneous proposition" asserts without any explanation. 
 
 2. Another of Mr. Gladstone's "stringent Condemna- 
 tions" (his 18th) is that of the Pope's denial of the proposition 
 that " the Eoman Pontifi" can and~ought to come to terms 
 with Progress, Liberalism, and the New Civilization." I 
 turn to the Allocution of March 18, 1861, andfind there no 
 formal condemnation of this Proposition at all. The Allocu- 
 tion is a long argument to the effect that the moving parties 
 in that Progress, Liberalism, and new Civilization, make 
 use of it so seriously to the injury of the Faith and the 
 Church, that it is both out of the power, and con- 
 trary to the duty, of the Pope to come to terms with 
 them. Nor would those prime movers thenaselves differ 
 from him here; certainly in this country it is the 
 common cry that Liberalism is and will be the Pope's 
 destruction, and they wish and mean it so to be. This 
 Allocution on the subject is at once beautiful, dignified, 
 
86 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 and toucliing : and I cannot conceive how Mr. Gladstone 
 should make stringency his one characteristic of these con- 
 demnations, especially when after all there is here no con- 
 demnation at all. 
 
 3. Take, again, Mr. Gladstone's 15th—" That the aboh- 
 tion of Temporal Power of the Popedom would be highly ad- 
 vantageous to the Church." Neither can I find in the Pope's 
 Allocution any formal condemnation whatever of this 
 proposition, much less a " stringent " one. Even the 
 Syllabus does -no more in the case of any one of the 
 eighty, than to call it an " error ;" and what the Pope 
 himself says of this particular error is only this : — " We 
 cannot but in particular warn and reprove (monere et 
 redarguere) those who applaud the decree by which the 
 Roman Pontiff" has been despoiled of all the honour and 
 dignity of his civil rule, and assert that the said decree, 
 more than anything else, conduces to the liberty and pros- 
 perity of the Church itselV— Alloc, April 20, 1849.. 
 
 4. Take another of his instances, the 1 7th, the " error " 
 that "in countries called Catholic the pubhc exercise of other 
 religions may laudably be allowed." I have had occasion 
 to mention already his mode of handling the Latin text of this 
 proposition — viz., that, whereas the men who were forbid- 
 den the public exercise of their religion were foreigners, 
 who . had no right to be in a country not their own at 
 all, and might fairly have conditions imposed upon them 
 during their stay there ; nevertheless Mr. Gladstone (appa- 
 rently through haste) has left out the word " hominibus 
 illue immigrantibus," on which so much turns. Next, as 
 I have observed above, it was only the sufferance of their 
 public worship, and again of all worships whatsoever, how- 
 ever many and various, which the Pope blamed ; further, the 
 the Pope's words did not apply to all States, but specially, 
 and, as far as the Allocution goes, definitely, to New Gra- 
 nada, 
 
 However, the point I wish to insist upon here is, that 
 there was in this case no condemned proposition at all, but 
 it was merely, as in the case of Spain, an act of the Govern- 
 ment which the Pope protested against. The Pope merely 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 87 
 
 told that Government that that act, and other acts which 
 they had committed, gave him very great pain ; that he had 
 expected better things of them ; that the way they went 
 on was all of a piece ; and they had his best prayers. Some- 
 how, it seems to me strange, for any one to call an expos- 
 tulation like this one of a set of " extraordinary declara- 
 tions" "stringent condemnations." 
 
 I am .convinced that the more the propositions and the 
 references contained in the SyJ.labus are examined, the more 
 signally will the charge break down, brought against the 
 Pope on occasion of it : as to those Propositions which 
 Mr. Grladstone specially selects, some of them I have 
 already taken in hand, and but few of them present any dif- 
 ficulty. 
 
 5. As to those on Marriage, I cannot follow Mr. Glad- 
 stone's meaning here, which seems to me very confused, 
 and it would be going out of the line of remark which I 
 have traced out for myself, (and which already is more ex- 
 tended than I could wish), were I to treat of them. 
 
 6. His fourth Error, (taken from the Encyclical) that 
 " Papal judgments and decrees may, without sin, be dis- 
 obeyed or difiered from," is a denial of the principle of 
 Hooker's celebrated work on Ecclesiastical Polity, and 
 would be condemned by him as well as by the Pope. 
 And it is plain to common sense that no society can stand 
 if its rules are disobeyed. What ckib or union would not 
 expel members who refused so to be bound ? 
 
 7. And the 5th,* 8th, and 9th propositions are necessarily 
 errors, if the Sketch of Church Polity drawn out in former 
 sections is true, and are necessarily considered as such by 
 those, as the Pope, who maintain that Polity. 
 
 8. The 10th Error, as others which I have noticed 
 above, is a universal (that " in the conflict of laws, civil 
 and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail"), and the 
 Pope does but deny a universal. 
 
 * Father Coleridge, in his Sermon on " The Abomination of Desola- 
 tion," observes that, whereas Proposition 6th speaks of "jilra," Mr. Glad- 
 stone translates " civil jura." Vid. that Sermon, and the " Month" for De- 
 cember, for remarks on various of these Propositions ; but above all 
 Mer. Dupanloup's works on the subject, Messrs. Burns and Gates, 1865. 
 
88 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 9. Mr. Gladstone's 11th, which I do not quite under- 
 stand in his wording of it, runs thus : — " Catholics can 
 approve of that system of education for youth which is sepa- 
 rated from the Catholic faith and the Church's power, and 
 which regards the science only of physical things, and the 
 outlines (fines) of earthly social life alone or at least prima- 
 rily." How is this not an "Error?" Surely there are 
 Englishmen enough who protest against the elimination 
 of religion from our schools ; is such a protest so dire an 
 ofience to Mr. Gladstone 1 
 
 10. And the 12th Error is this : — That " the science of 
 philosophy and of morals, also the laws of the State, can 
 and should keep clear of divine and ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity," This too will not be anything short of an error in 
 the judgment of great numbers of our own people. Is 
 Benthamism so absolutely the Truth, that the Pope is to be 
 denounced because he has not yet become a convert to it 'i 
 
 11. There are only two of the condemnations which 
 really require a word of explanation ; I have already 
 referred to them. One is that of Mr. Gladstone's sixth 
 Proposition, "Eoman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils, 
 have departed from the limits of their power, have usurped 
 the rights of Princes, and even in defining matters of 
 faith and morals have erred." These words are taken 
 from the Lima Priest's book. We have to see then what 
 he means by " the Rights of Princes," for the propo- 
 sition is condemned in Ms sense of the word. It is 
 a rule of the Church in the condemnation of a book to 
 state the proposition condemned in the words of the book . 
 itself, without the Church being answerable for the words 
 employed.* I have already referred to this rule in my 
 
 * Propositiones, de qulbus Ecclesia judicium suum prouunciat, duobus 
 prcesertim modis'spectari possunt, vel absolute ac in se ipsis, vel,relative ad 
 sensum libri et auctoris. In censurl propositionis alicujus auctoris vel 
 libri, Ecclesia attendit ad sensum ab eo intentum, qui quidem ex verbis, 
 ex toti doctrinse ipsius serie, libri textura et confirraatione, consilio, in- 
 stitutoque elicitur. Propositio libri vel auctoris cequivocaeaae potest, dupli- 
 cemque habere sensum, rectum unum et alteram malum. Ubi contingU 
 Ecclesia/m propositiones hujusmodi cequivocas absque prceviA distinctiona 
 tensuum configere, censura unice cadit in sensum perversvm libri vel auot, 
 foris. —Tournely t. 2, p. 170, ed. 1752, 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 89 
 
 5th section. Now this Priest included among the 
 rights of Catholic princes that of deposing Bishops 
 from their sacred Ministry, of determining the impedi- 
 ments to marriage, of forming Episcopal sees, and of 
 being free from episcopal authority in spiritual mat- 
 ters. When, then, the Proposition is condemned "that 
 Popes had usurped the rights of Princes ;" what is meant 
 is, "the so-called rights of Princes," which were really 
 the rights of the Church, in assuming which there was no 
 usurpation at all. 
 
 12. The other proposition, Mr. Gladstone's seventh, 
 the condemnation of which requires a remark, is this : 
 "The Church has not the power to employ force (vis 
 inferendse) nor any temporal power direct or indirect." 
 This is one of a series of Propositions found in the 
 work of Professor Nuytz, entitled, "Juris Ecclesiastici 
 Institutiones," all of which are condemned in the Pope's 
 Apostolic Letter of August 22, 1851. Now here " employ- 
 ing force " is not the Pope's phrase but Professor Nuytz's, 
 and the condemnation is meant to run thus, '• It is an 
 error to say, with Professor Nuytz, that what lie calls 
 ■' employing force ' is not allowable to the Church." 
 That this is the right interpretation of the " error " de- 
 pends of course on a knowledge of the Professor's work, 
 which I have never had an opportunity of seeing; but 
 here I will set down what the received doctrine of the 
 Church is on ecclesiastical punishments, as stated in a 
 work of the highest authority, since it comes to us with 
 letters of approval from Gregory XVI. and Pius IX. 
 
 " The opinion," says Cardinal Soglia, " that the coercive 
 power divinely bestowed upon the Church consists in the 
 infliction of spiritual punishments alone, and not in corporal 
 or temporal, seems more in harmony with the gentleness 
 of the Church. Accordingly I follow their judgment, who 
 withdraw from the Church the corporal sword, by which 
 the body is destroyed or blood is shed. Pope Nicholas 
 thus writes : ' The Church has no sword but the spiritual. 
 She does not kill, but gives life, hence that weU-known 
 ■ saying, ' Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine.' But the lighter 
 
.90 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 punishments, though temporal and corporal, such as shut- 
 ting up in a monastery, prison, flogging, and others of the 
 same kind, short of eflFusion of blood, the Church jure suo 
 caji inflict." — (Institut. Jur., pp. 161, 9, Paris.) 
 
 And the Cardinal quotes the words of Fleury, "The 
 Church has enjoined on penitent sinners almsgivings, 
 fastings, and other corporal inflictions. . . Augustine 
 speaks of beating with sticks, as sanctioned by the Bishops, 
 after the manner of masters in the case of servants, par- 
 ents in the case of children and schoolmasters of scholars. 
 Abbots flogged monks in the way of paternal and domestic 
 chastisement . . Imprisonment for a set time or for life is 
 mentioned among canonical penances ; priests and other 
 clerics, who had been deposed for their crimes, being 
 committed to prison in order that they might pass the 
 time to come in penance for their crime, which thereby 
 was withdrawn from the memoiy of tlie public." 
 
 But now I have to answer one question. If what I 
 have said is substantially the right explanation to give to 
 the drift and contents of the Syllabus, have not I to account 
 for its making so much noise, and giving such deep and wide 
 offence on its appearance '\ It has already been reprobated 
 by the voice of the world. Is there not, then, some reason 
 at the bottom of the aversion felt by educated Europe 
 towards it, which I have not mentioned ? This is a very 
 large question to entertain, too large for this place ; but 
 I will say one word upon it. 
 
 Doubtless one of the reasons of the excitement and dis- 
 pleasure which the Syllabus caused and causes so widely, 
 is the number and variety of the propositions marked as 
 errors, and the systematic arrangement to which they were 
 subjected. So large and elaborate a work struck the public 
 mind as a new law, moral, social and ecclesiastical, whiqji 
 was to be the foundation of a European code, and the 
 beginning of a new world, in opposition to the social prin- 
 ciples of the 1,9th century ; and there certainly were per- 
 sons in high station who encouraged this idea. When, 
 this belief was once received, it became the interpretation 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 91 
 
 of tlie whole Syllabus through the eighty Propositions, of 
 which it recorded the erroneousness ; as if they were all 
 portions of one great scheme of aggression. Then, when 
 the public was definitively directed to the examination of 
 these Theses damnatce, their drift and the meaning of their 
 condemnation was sure to be misunderstood, from the 
 ignorance, in the case of all but ecclcvsiastics, of the nature 
 and force of ecclesiastical language. The condemnations had 
 been published in the Pope's Encyclicals and Allocutions in 
 the course of the preceding eighteen years, and no one had 
 taken any notice of them; now, when they were brought all 
 together, they on that very account made a great sensation. 
 Next, that same fact seemed in itself a justification, with 
 minds already prejudiced, for expecting in each of them 
 something extraordinary, and even hostile, to society ; and 
 then, again, when they were examined one by one, cer- 
 tainly their real sense was often not obvious, and could 
 not be, to the intelligence of laymen, high and low, 
 educated and simple. 
 
 Another circumstance, which I am not theologian enough 
 to account for, is this, — that the wording of many of the 
 erroneous propositions, as they are drawn up in the Sylla- 
 bus, gives an apparent breadth to the matter condemned 
 which is not found in the Pope's own words in his Allocu- 
 tions and Encyclicals. Not that really there is any differ- 
 ence between the Pope's words and Cardinal Antonelli's, 
 for (as I have shown in various instances) what the former 
 says in the concrete, the latter does but repeat in the 
 abstract ; or, to speak logically when the Pope enunciates 
 as true the particular affir-mative, " New Granada ought 
 to keep up the establishment of the Catholic Heligion," 
 then (since its contradictory is necessarily false) the Car- 
 dinal declares," " To say that no State should keep up the 
 establishment of the Catholic Eehgion is an error." But 
 there, is a dignity and beauty in the Pope's own language 
 which the Cardinal's abstract Syllabus cannothave, and 
 this gave to opponents an opportunity to declaim against 
 the Pope, which opportunity was in no sense afforded 
 by what he said himself. 
 
92 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 Then,again,it must be recollected, ia connexion with what 
 I have said, that theology is a science, and a science of a 
 special kind ; its reasoning, its method, its modes of ex- 
 pression, and its language are all its own. Every science 
 must be in the hands of a comparatively few persons — 
 that is, of those who have made it a study. The courts 
 of law have a great number of rules in good measure 
 traditional ; so has the House of Commons, and, judging 
 by what one reads in the public prints, men must have a 
 noviceship there before they can be at perfect ease in their 
 position. In like manner young theologians, and still 
 more those who are none, are sure to mistake- in matters 
 of detail ; indeed a really first-rate theologian is rarely to 
 be found. At Rome the rules of interpreting authorita- 
 tive documents are known with a perfection which at this 
 time is scarcely to be found elsewhere. Some of these 
 rules, indeed, are known to all priests ; but even this gene- 
 ral knowledge is not possessed by laj'men, much less by 
 Protestants, however able and experienced in their own 
 several lines of study or profession. One of those rules I have 
 had several times occasion to mention. In the censure of 
 books, which offend against doctrine or discipline, it is 
 a common rule to take sentences out of them in the 
 author's own words, whether those words are in themselves 
 good or bad, and to affix some note of condemnation to 
 them in the sense in which they oCcur in the book 
 in question. Thus it may happen that even what seems 
 at first sight a true statement, is condemne(J for being 
 made the shelter of an error ; for instance : " _Faitli 
 justifies when it works," or " there is no religion where 
 there is no charity," may be taken in a good sense ; 
 but each proposition is condemned in Quesnell, because 
 it is false as he uses it. 
 
 A further illustration of the necessity of a scientific 
 education in order to understand the value of Propositions, 
 ia afforded by a controversy which has lately gone on 
 among us as to the validity of Abyssinian Orders. In 
 reply to a document urged on one side of the question, it 
 was allowed on the other, that, " if that document was to 
 
THE SYLLABUS. 93 
 
 le read in the same way as we should read any ordinary 
 judgment, the interpretation which had been given to it 
 was the most obvious and natural." " But it was well 
 known " it was said, " to those who are familiar with the 
 practical working of such decisions, that they are only 
 interpreted with safety in the light of certain rules, which 
 arise out of what is called the stylus curice." And then 
 some of these rules were given ; first, " that to understand 
 the real meaning of a decision, no matter how clearly set 
 forth, we should know the nature of the difficulty or 
 dvhium, as it was understood by the tribunal that had to 
 decide upon it. Next, nothing but the direct proposition, 
 in its nudest and severest sense, as distinguished from in- 
 direct propositions, the grounds of the decision, or implied 
 statements, is ruled by the judgment. Also, if there is 
 anything in the wording of a decision which appears in- 
 consistent with the teaching of an approved body of theo- 
 logians, &c., the decision is to be interpreted so as to leave 
 such teaching intact ;" and so on.'"" It is plain that the 
 view thus opened upon us has further bearings than that 
 for which I make use of it here. 
 
 These remarks on scientific theology apply also of course 
 to its language. I have employed myself in illustration 
 in framing a sentence, which, would be plain enough to 
 any priest, but I think would perplex any Protestant. I 
 hope it is not of too light a character to introduce here. 
 We will suppose then a theologian to write as follows : — 
 " Holding, as we do, that there is only material sin in 
 those who, being invincibly ignorant, reject the truth, 
 therefore in charity we hope that they have the future 
 portion of formal believers, as considering that by virtue 
 of their good faith, though not of the tody of the faithful, 
 they implicitly and interpretatively believe what they seem 
 to deny." 
 
 What sense would this statement convey to the mind 
 of a member of some Keformation Society or Protestant 
 League ? He would read it as follows, and consider it all 
 
 * Mouth, Nov. and Dec, 1873. 
 
94 
 
 THE SYLLABUS. 
 
 the more insidious and dangerous for its being so very- 
 unintelligible : — " Holding, as we do, that there is only a 
 very considerable sin in those who reject the truth out of 
 contumacious ignorance, therefore in charity we hope that 
 they have the future portion of nominal Christians, as 
 considering, that by the excellence of their living faith, 
 though not in the number of believers, they believe with- 
 out any hesitation, as interpreters | of Scripture 1] what 
 they seem to deny." 
 
 Now, considering that the Syllabus was intended for 
 the Bishops, who would be the interpreters of it, as the 
 need arose, to their people,, and it got bodily into English 
 newspapers even before it was received at many an epis- 
 copal residence, we shall not be surprised at the commo- 
 tion which accompanied its publication. 
 
 I have spoken of the causes intrinsic to the Syllabus, 
 which have led to misunderstandings about it. As to ex- 
 ternal, I can be no judge myself as to what Catholics who 
 have means of knowing are very decidedin declaring, the 
 tremendous power of the Secret Societies. It is enough 
 to have suggested here, how a wide-spread organization 
 like theirs might malign and frustrate the most beneficial 
 acts of the Pope. One matter I had information of myself 
 from Eome at the time when the Syllabus had just been pub- 
 lished, before there was yet time to ascertain how it would 
 be taken by the world at large. Now, the Rock of St. Peter 
 on its summit enjoys a pure and serene atmosphere, but 
 there is a great deal of Eoman malaria at the foot of it. 
 While the Holy Father was in great earnestness and 
 charity addressing the Catholic world by his Cardinal 
 Minister, there were circles of light-minded men in his 
 city who were laying bets with each other whether the 
 Syllabus would " make a row in Europe " or not. Of 
 course it was the interest of those who betted on the affir- 
 mative side to represent the Pope's act to the greatest 
 disadvantage ; and it was very easy to kindle a flame in 
 the mass of English and other visitors at Rome which 
 with a very, little nursing was soon strong enough to 
 take care of itself. 
 
95 
 
 § 8. The Vatican Council. 
 
 In beginning to speak of the Vatican Council, I am 
 obliged from circumstances to begin by speaking of myself. 
 The most unfounded and erroneous assertions have publicly 
 been made about my sentiments towards it, and as confi- 
 dently as they are unfounded. Only a few weeks ago it was 
 stated categorically by some anonymous correspondent of 
 a Liverpool paper, with reference to the prospect of my 
 undertaking the task on which I am now employed, that 
 it was, " in fact, understood that at one time Dr. Newman 
 was on the point of uniting with Dr. Dollinger and his 
 party, and that it required the earnest persuasion of several 
 members of the Roman Catholic Episcopate to prevent him 
 from taking that step," — an unmitigated and most ridi- 
 culous untruth in every word of it, nor would it be worth 
 while to notice it here, except for its connexion with the 
 subject on which I am entering. 
 
 But the explanation of such reports about me is 
 easy. They arise from forgetfulness on the part of those 
 who spread them, that there are two sides of ecclesiastical 
 acts, that right ends are often prosecuted by very un- 
 worthy means, and that in consequence those who, like 
 myself, oppose a mode of action, are not necessarily opposed 
 to the issue for which it has been adopted. Jacob gained by 
 wrong means his destined blessing. " All are not Israelites, 
 who are pf Israel," and there are partizans of Eome who 
 have not the sanctity and msdom of Eome herself. 
 
 I am not referring to anything which took place 
 within the walls of the Council chambers ; of that of course 
 we know nothing ; but even though things occurred there 
 which it is not pleasant to dwell upon, that would not 
 at all affect, not by an hair's breadth, the validity of 
 the resulting definition, as I shall presently show. What - 
 
96 THE VATICAK COUNCIL. 
 
 I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, while life lasts, is the 
 violence and cruelty of journals and other publications, 
 which, taking as they professed to do the Catholic side, em- 
 ployed themselves by their rash language (though, of course, 
 they did not mean it so), in unsetthng the weak in faith, 
 throwing back inquirers, and shocking the Protestant mind. 
 Nor do I speak of publications only ; a feeling was too 
 prevalent in many places that no one could be true to God 
 and His Church, who had any pity on troubled souls, or any 
 scruple of " scandalizing those little ones who believe in " 
 Christ, and of " despising and destroying him for whom 
 He died." 
 
 It was this most keen feeling, which made me say, as I 
 did continually, " I will not believe that the Pope's Infalli- 
 bility will be defined, till defined it is." 
 
 Moreover, aprivate letter of minebecamepublicproperty. 
 That letter, to which Mr. Gladstone has referred with a 
 compliment to me which I have not merited, was one of the 
 most confidential I ever wrote in my life. I wrote it to my 
 own Bishop, under a deep sense of the responsibility I should 
 incur, were I not to speak out to him my whole mind. 
 I put the matter from me when I had said my say, and kept 
 no proper copy of the letter. To my dismay I saw it in 
 the public prints : to this day I do not know, nor suspect, 
 how it got there. I cannot withdraw it, for I never put it 
 forward, so it wiE.^ remain on the columns of newspapers 
 whether I will or not ; but I withdraw it as far as I can, 
 by declaring that it was never meant for the public eye. 
 
 1. So much as to my posture of mind before the De- 
 finition : now I will set down how I felt after it. On July 24, 
 1870, I wrote as follows : — 
 
 " I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased 
 at its moderation — that is, if the doctrine in question is 
 to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehen- 
 sive ; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. 
 The question is, does it come to me with the authority of 
 an Ecumenical Council ? 
 
 *' Now the immd facie argument is in favour of its 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 97 
 
 having that authority. The Council was legitimately 
 called; it was more largely attended than any Council 
 before it; and innumerable prayers from the whole of 
 Christendom, have preceded and attended it, and merited a 
 happy issue of its proceedings. 
 
 " Were it not then for certain circumstances, under 
 which the Council made the definition, I should receive 
 that definition at once. Even as it is, if I were called 
 upon to profess it, I should be unable, considering it came 
 from the Holy Father and the competent local authorities, 
 at once to refuse to do so. On the other hand, it cannot 
 be denied that there are reasons for a Catholic, till better 
 informed, to suspend his judgment on its validity. 
 
 "We all know that ever since the opening of the 
 Council, there has been a strenuous opposition to the defi- 
 nition of the doctrine ; and that, at the time when it was 
 actually passed, more than eighty Fathers absented them- 
 selves from the Council, and would have nothing to do with 
 its act. But, if the fact be so, that the Fathers were not 
 unanimous, is the definition valid ? This depends on the 
 question whether unanimity, at least moral, is or is not 
 necessary for its validity ? As at present advised I think 
 it is ; certainly Pius IV. lays great stress on the unanimity 
 of the Fathers in the Council of Trent. ' Quibus rebus 
 perfectis,' he says in his Bull of Promulgation, ' con- 
 cihum tanta omnium qui illi interfuerunt concordia perac- 
 tum fuit, ut consensum plane a Domino efiectum esse 
 constiterit ; idque. in nostris atque omnium oculis valde 
 mirabile fuerit.' 
 
 " Far diflferent has been the case now,— though the 
 Council is not yet finished. But, if I must now at once 
 decide what to think of it, I should consider that all turned 
 on what the dissentient Bishops now do. 
 
 " If they separate and go home without acting as a 
 body, if they act only individually, or as individuals, and 
 each in his own way, then I should not recognize in their 
 opposition to the majority that force, firmness, and unity 
 of view, which creates a real case of want of moral unani- 
 piity in the Council, 
 
98 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 " Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dissen- 
 tient Bishops more or less take part in it, and concur in its 
 acts ; if there is a new Pope, and he continues the pohcy 
 of the present ; and if the Council terminates without any 
 reversal or modification of the definition, or any effective 
 movement against it on the part of the dissentients, then 
 again there will be good reason for saying that the want 
 of a moral unanimity has not been made out. 
 
 " And further, if the definition is consistently received 
 by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or as the ex- 
 pression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent by 
 the force of the great dictum, ' Securus judicat orbis terra- 
 rum.' 
 
 " This indeed is a broad principle by which all acts of 
 the rulers of the Church are ratified. But for it, we might 
 reasonably question some of the past Councils or their 
 acts." 
 
 Also I wrote as follows to a friend, who was troubled 
 at the way in which the dogma was passed, in order to 
 place before him in various points of view the duty of 
 receiving it : — 
 
 "July 27, 1870. 
 " I have been thinking over the subject which just 
 now gives you and me with thousands of others, who care 
 for religion, so much concern. 
 
 " First, tiU better advised, nothing shall make me say 
 that a mere majority in a Council, as opposed to a moral 
 unanimity, in itself creates an obligation to receive its dog- 
 matic decrees. This is a point of history and precedent, 
 and of course on further examination I may find myself 
 wrong in the view which I take of history and precedent ; 
 but I do not, cannot see, that a majority in the preseat 
 Council can of itself rule its own sufficiency, without such 
 external testimony. 
 
 " But there are other means by which I can be brought 
 under the obligation of receiving a doctrine as a dogma. 
 If I am clear that there is a primitive and uninterrupted 
 tradition, as of the divinity 'of our Lord ; or where a high 
 probability drawn from Scripture or Tradition is partially 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 99 
 
 or probably confirmed by the Church. Thus a particular 
 Catholic might be so nearly sure that the promise to Peter 
 in Scripture proves that the infallibility of Peter is a neces- 
 sary dogma, as only to be kept from holding it as such by 
 the absence of any judgment on the part of the Church, so 
 that the present unanimity of the Pope and 500 Bishops, 
 even though not sufficient to constitute a formal Synodal 
 act, would at once put him in the position, and lay him 
 under the obligation, of receiving the doctrine as a dogma, 
 that is, to receive it with its anathema. 
 
 " Or again, if nothing definitely sufiicient from Scrip- 
 ture or Tradition can be brought to contradict a defini- 
 tion, the fact of a legitimate Superior having defined it, 
 may be an obligation in conscience to receive it with an 
 internal assent. For myself, ever since I was a Catholic, I 
 have held the Pope's infallibility as a matter of theological 
 opinion ; at least, I see nothing in the Definition which 
 necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition, or History; 
 and the " Doctor Ecclesise," (as the Pope is styled by the 
 Council of Florence) bids me accept it. In this case, I do not 
 receive it on the word of the Council, but on the Pope's 
 self-assertion. 
 
 " And I confess, the fact that all along for so many 
 centuries the Head of the Church and Teacher of the faith- 
 ful and Vicar of Christ has been allowed by God to assert 
 virtually his infallibility, is a great argument in favour of 
 the Validity of his claim. 
 
 " Another ground for receiving the dogma, still not 
 upon the direct authority of the Council, or with accept- 
 ance of the validity of its act per se, is the consideration 
 that our Merciful Lord would not care so little for His 
 elect people, the multitude of the faithful, as to allow their 
 visible Head, and such a large number of Bishops to lead 
 them into error, and an error so serious, if an error. This 
 consideration leads me to accept the doctrine as a dogma, 
 indirectly indeed from the Council, but not so much from a 
 Council, as from the Pope and a very large number of 
 Bishops. The question is not whether they had a right to 
 impose, or even were right in imposing the dogma on the 
 ■f„;ii,-f,,i . !.„+ „rV,ai-\,of Tinvincr rinnft SO. I havc uot an obli- 
 
100 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 gation to accept it, according to the maxim, ' Fieri non 
 debuit, factum valet.' " 
 
 This letter, written before the minority had melted 
 away, insists on this principle, that a Council's definition 
 would have a virtual claim on our reception, even though 
 it were not passed conciliariter, but in some indirect way ; 
 as, for, instance, to use a Parliamentary expression, in 
 general committee, the great object of a Council being in 
 some way or other to declare the judgment of the Church. 
 I think the third Ecumenical will furnish an instance of 
 what I Inean. There the question in dispute was settled 
 and defined, even before certain constituent portions of the 
 Episcopal body had made their appearance ; and this, with 
 a protest of 68 of the Bishops then present against 82. 
 When the remaining 43 arrived, these did more than protest 
 against the definition which had been carried ; they actually 
 anathematised the Fathers who carried it, whose number 
 seems to have stood altogether at 124 against 111 ; 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, and integral portions of the 
 Council. The heads of the various parties entered into 
 correspondence with each other, and at the end of two 
 years their difi'erences with each other were arranged. 
 There are those who have no belief in the authority of 
 Councils at all, and feel no call upon" them to discriminate 
 between one Council and another ; but Anglicans, who are 
 so fierce against the Vatican, and so respectful towards the 
 Ephesine, should consider what good reason they have for 
 swallowing the third Council, while they strain out the 
 nineteenth. 
 
 The Council of Ephesus furnishes us with another re- 
 mark, bearing upon the Vatican. It was natural for men 
 who were in the minority at Ephesus to think that the faith 
 of the Church had been brought into the utmost peril by 
 the definition of the CouncU which they had unsuccessfully 
 opposed. They had done so from their conviction that that 
 definition gave great encouragement to religious errors in 
 the opposite extreme to those which it condemned ; and, in 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 101 
 
 fact, I think that, Immanly speaking, the peril was extreme. 
 The event proved it to be so, when twentj- years afterwards 
 another Council was held nnder the successors of the majo- 
 rity at Ephesus and carried triumphantly those very errors 
 whose eventual success had been predicted by the minority. 
 But Providence is never wanting to His Church. St. Leo, 
 the Pope of the day, interfered with this heretical Council, 
 and the innovating party was stopped in its career. Its 
 acts were cancelled at the great Council of Chalcedon, the 
 Fourth Ecumenical, which was held under the Pope's gui- 
 dance, and, without of course touching the definition of the 
 Third, which had been settled once for all, trimmed the 
 balance of doctrine by completing it, and excluded for ever 
 from the Church those errors which seemed to have received 
 some sanction at Ephesus. There is nothing of course that 
 can be reversed in the Vatican definitions ; but, should the 
 need arise, (which is not likely,) to set right a false inter- 
 pretation, another Leo will be given us for the occasion ; 
 " in monte Dominus videbit." 
 
 In this remark, made for the benefit of those who need 
 it, as I do not myself, I shelter myself under the following 
 passage of Molina, which a friend has pointed out to me : — 
 " Though the Holy Ghost has always been present to the 
 Church, to hinder error in her definitions, and in conse- 
 quence they are all most true and consistent, yet it is not 
 therefore to be denied, that God, when any matters have 
 to be defined, requires of the Church a co-operation and in- 
 vestigation of those matters, and that, in proportion to the 
 quality of the men who meet together in Councils, to the 
 investigation and diligence which is applied, and the greater 
 or less experience and knowledge which is possessed more 
 at one time than at other times, definitions more or less 
 perspicuous are dxawn. up and matters are defined more 
 
 exactly and completely at one time than at other times 
 
 And, whereas by disputations, persevering reading, medita- 
 tion, and investigation of matters, there is wont to be 
 increased in course of time the knowledge and understand- 
 ing of the same, and the Fathers of the later Councils are 
 assisted by the investigation and definitions of the fornjer, 
 
102 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 hence it arises that the definitions of later Councils are 
 wont to be more luminous, fuller, more accurate and exact 
 than those of the earlier. Moreover, it belongs to the later 
 Councils to interpret and to define more exactly and fuUy 
 what in earlier Councils have been defined less clearly, fully, 
 and exactly." {De Concord. Lib. Arbit., &c.> xiii. 15, p. 59.) 
 
 2. The other main objection to the Vatican Council is 
 founded upon its supposed neglect of history in the decision 
 which its Definition embodies. This objection is touched 
 upon by Mr. Grladstone in the beginning of his Pamphlet, 
 where he speaks of its " repudiation of ancient history," and 
 1 have an opportunity given me of noticing it here. 
 
 He asserts that; during the last forty years, " more 
 and more have the assertions of continuous uniformity 
 of doctrine " in the Catholic Church " receded into scarcely 
 penetrable shadow. More and more have another series 
 of assertions, of a living authority, ever ready to open, 
 adopt, and shape Christian doctrine according to the 
 times, taken their place." Accordingly, he considers that 
 a dangerous opening has been made in the authoritative 
 teaching of the Church for the repudiation of ancient truth 
 and the rejection of new. However, as I understand him, 
 he withdraws this charge from the controversy he has 
 initiated (though not from his Pamphlet) as far as it is 
 aimed at the pure theology of the Church. It " belongs," 
 he says, " to the theological domain," and "is a matter unfit 
 for him to discuss, as it is a question of divinity." It has 
 been, then, no duty of mine to consider it, except as it 
 relates to matters ecelesiastical ; but I am unwilling,- when 
 a charge has been made against our theology, though un- 
 supported, yet unretracted, to leave it altogether without 
 reply ; and that the more, because, after renouncing " ques- 
 tions of divinity" at p. 14, nevertheless Mr. Gladstone 
 brings them forward again at p. 15, speaking, as he does, 
 of the " deadly blows of 1854 and 1870 at the old, historic, 
 scientific, and moderate school " by the definitions of the 
 Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone then insists on the duty of " maintaining 
 the truth and authority of histpry, and the inestimable value 
 
THE VATICAN COUKCIL. 103 
 
 of the historic spirit ;" and so far of course I have the plea- 
 sure of heartily agreeing with him. As the Church is a 
 sacred and divine creation, so in like manner her history, 
 with its wonderful evolution of events, the throng of great 
 actors who have a part in it, and its multiform literature, 
 stained though its annals are with human sin and error, 
 and recorded on no system, and by uninspired authors, still 
 is a sacred work also ; and those who make light of it, or 
 distrust its lessons, incur a grave responsibility. But it is 
 not every one who can read its pages rightly ; and certainly 
 I cannot foUow Mr. Gladstone's reading of it. He is too 
 well informed indeed, too large in his knowledge, too acute 
 and comprehensive in his views, not to have an acquaint- 
 ance with history far beyond the run of even highly 
 educated men ; still, when he accuses us of deficient atten- 
 tion to history, one cannot help asking, whether he does 
 not, as a matter of course, take for granted as true the 
 principles for using it familiar with Protestant divines, and 
 denied by our own, and in consequence whether his im- 
 peachment of us does not resolve itself into the fact that he 
 is Protestant and we are Catholics. Nay, has it occurred 
 to him that perhaps it is the fact, that we have views on 
 the relation of History to Dogma different from those which 
 Protestants maintain ? And is he so certain of the facts of 
 History in detail, of their relevancy, and of their drift, as 
 to have a right, I do not say to have an opinion of his own, 
 but to publish to the world, on his own warrant, that we 
 have " repudiated ancient history V He publicly charges 
 us, not merely with having "neglected" it, or "garbled" 
 its evidence, or with having contradicted certain ancient 
 usages or doctrines to which it bears witness, but he says 
 "repudiated." He could not have used a stronger term, 
 supposing the Vatican Council had, by a formal act, cut 
 itself off from early times, instead of professing, as it does 
 (hypocritically, if you will, but still professing) to speak 
 " supported by Holy Scripture and the decrees both of pre- 
 ceding Popes and General Councils," and "faithfully adhering 
 to the aboriginal tradition of the Church," Ought any one 
 but an oculatus testis, a man whose profession was to 
 
104 The VATICAN cotJNCiii. 
 
 acquaint himself with the details of history, to claim to 
 himself the right of bringing, on his own authority, so ex- 
 treme a charge against so august a power, so inflexible and 
 rooted in its traditions through the long past, as Mr. Glad- 
 stone would admit the Eoman Church to be ? 
 
 Of course I shall be reminded that, though Mr. Gladstone 
 cannot be expected to speak on so large a department of 
 knowledge with the confidence decorous in one who has 
 made a personal study of it, there are others who have a 
 right to do so ; and that by those others he is corroborated 
 and sanctioned. There are authors, it may be said, of sa 
 commanding an authority from their learning and their 
 honesty, that, for the purposes of discussion or of contro- 
 versy, what they say may be said by any one else without 
 presumption or risk of confutation. I will never say a word 
 'of my own against those learned and distinguished men to 
 whom I refer. No : their present whereabout, wherever it 
 is, is to me a thought full of melancholy. It is a tragical 
 event, both for them and for us, that they have left us. It 
 robs us of a great prestige ; they have left none to take 
 their place. I think them utterly wrong in what they 
 have clone and are doing ; and, moreover, I agree as little 
 in their view of history as in their acts. Extensive. as may 
 be their historical knowledge, I have no reason to think 
 that they, more than Mr. Gladstone, would accept the posi- 
 tion which History holds among the Loci Theologici, as 
 Catholic theologians determine it ; and I am denying not 
 their report of facts, but their use of the facts they report, 
 and that, because of that special stand-point from which 
 they view the relations existing between the records of 
 History and the enunciations of Popes and Councils. They 
 seem to me to expect from History more than History can 
 furnish, and to have too little confidence in the Divine Pro- 
 mise and Providence as guiding and determining those 
 enunciations. 
 
 Why should Ecclesiastical History, any more than the 
 text of Scripture, contain in it " the whole counsel of God f 
 Why should private judgmen^t be unlawful in interpreting 
 Scripture against the voice of authority, and yet be lawful 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 105 
 
 in the interpretation of History? There are those who 
 make short work of questions such as these by denying 
 authoritative interpretation altogether; that is their pri- 
 vate concern, and no one has a right to inquire into their 
 reason for so doing ; but the case would be dijBferent were 
 such a man to come forward publicly, and to arraign others, 
 without first confuting their theological lorceamhula, for 
 repudiating history, or for repudiating the Bible. 
 
 For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of 
 the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence ; 
 but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved 
 by it. Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or 
 less, towards h. proof of the Catholic doctrines ; often nearly 
 the whole way ; sometimes it goes only so far as to point 
 in their direction ; sometimes there is only an absence of 
 evidence for a conclusion contrary to them ; nay, some- 
 times there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a 
 contrary conclusion, which has to be explained ;-^in all cases 
 there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word 
 of the Church. He who believes the. dogmas of the Church 
 •only because he has reasoned them out of History, is 
 scarcely a Catholic. It is the Churcli's use of History 
 in which the Catholic believes ; and she uses other inform- 
 ants also. Scripture, Tradition, the ecclesiastical sense, or 
 ^>p6vr]iia, and a subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin 
 is a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or " renun- 
 ciation of mental freedom " in this view, any more than in 
 the converts of the Apostles believing what the Apostles 
 might preach to them or teach them out of Scripture. 
 
 What has been said of History in relation to the formal 
 Definitions of the Church, applies also to the exercises of 
 Eatiocination. Our logical poAvers, too, being a gift from 
 God, may claim to have their informations respected ; and 
 Protestants sometimes accuse our theologians, for instance, 
 the medieval schoolmen, of -having used them in divine 
 matters a little too freely. But it has ever been our teach- 
 ing and our protest that, as there are doctrines which lie 
 beyond the direct evidence of history, so there are doc- 
 trines which transcend the discoveries of reason ; and, 
 
106 TEE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 after all, whether they are more or less recommended to us 
 by the one informant or the other, in all cases the imme- 
 diate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of 
 them is, not that they are proved to him by Eeason or by 
 History, but because Eevelation has declared them by means 
 of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their 
 legitimate exponent. 
 
 " What has been said also applies to those other truths, 
 with which Eatiocination has more to do than History, 
 which are sometimes called developments of Christian doc- 
 trine, truths which are not upon the surface of the Aposto- 
 lic depositum — that is, the legacy of Eevelation, — but which 
 from time to time are brought into form by theologians, and 
 sometimes have been proposed to the faithful by the Church, 
 as direct objects of faith. No Catholic would hold that 
 they ought to be logically deduced in their fulness and 
 exactness from the belief of the first centuries, but onl^ 
 this, — that, on the assumption of the Infallibility of the 
 Church (which wdl overcome every objection except a contra- 
 dictionin thought), there is nothing greatly totrythereasonin 
 such difficulties as occur in reconciling those evolved doctrines 
 with the teaching of the ancient Fathers ; such develop- 
 ment being evidently the new form, explanation, trans- 
 formation, or carrying out of what in substance was held 
 from the first, what the Apostles said, but have not recorded 
 in writing, or would necessarily have said under our cir- 
 cumstances, or if they had been asked, or in view of certain 
 uprisings of error, and in that sense really portions of the 
 legacy of truth, of which the Church, in all her members, 
 but especially in her hierarchy, is the divinely appointed 
 trustee. 
 
 Such an evolution of doctrine has been, as I would main- 
 tain, a law of the Church's teaching from the earliest 
 times, and in nothing is her title of " semper eadem " more 
 remarkably illustrated than in the correspondence of her 
 ancient and modern exhibition of it. As to the ecclesias- 
 tical Acts of 1854 and 18V0, I think with Mr. Gladstone 
 that the principle of doctrinal development, and that of 
 authority, have never in the proceedings of the Church 
 
THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 107 
 
 been so freely and largely used as in the Definitions then 
 promulgated to the faithful; but I deny that at either 
 time the testimony of history was repudiated or perverted. 
 The utmost that can be fairly said by an opponent against 
 the theological decisions of those years is, that antece- 
 dently to the event, it might appear that there were no suffi- 
 cient historical grounds in behalf of either of them — I do 
 not mean for a personal 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. 
 This adverse anticipation was proved to be a mistake by 
 the fact of the definition being made. 
 
 3. Here T will say just a few words on the case of 
 Pope Honorius, whose condemnation by anathema in the 
 6th Ecumenical Council, is certainly a Btvong primd facie 
 argument against the Pope's doctrinal infallibility. His 
 case is this : — Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, favoured, 
 or rather did not condemn, a doctrine concerning our 
 Lord's Person which afterwards the sixth Council pro- 
 nounced to be heresy. He consulted Pope Honorius upon 
 the subject, who in two formal letters declared his entire 
 concurrence with Sergius's opinion. Honorius died in 
 peace, but, more than forty years after him, the 6th Ecume- 
 nical Council was held, which condemned him as a heretic 
 ■ on the score of those two letters. The simple question is, 
 whether the heretical documents proceeded from him as an 
 infallible authority or as a private Bishop. 
 
 Now I observe that, whereas the Vatican Council has 
 determined that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks 
 ex cathedrd, and that, in order to speak ex cathedrd, he 
 must at least speak " as exercising the office of Pastor and 
 Doctor of all Christians, defining, by virtue of his Apos- 
 tolical authority, a doctrine whether of faith or of morals 
 for the acceptance of the universal Church " (though Mr. 
 Gladstone strangely says, p. 34, "There is no established or 
 accepted definition of the phrase ex cathedrd") from this 
 Pontifical and dogmatic explanation of the phrase it fol- 
 lows, that, whatever Honorius said in answer to Sergius, 
 and whatever he held, his words were not ex cathedrd, and 
 therefore did not proceed from his infallibility 
 
108 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 I say so first, because he could not fulfil the above 
 conditions^ of an ex catliedrd utterance, if he did not ac- 
 tually mean to fulfil them. The question is unlike the 
 question about the Sacraments ; external and positive acts, 
 whether material actions or formal words, speak for them- 
 selves. Teaching on the other hand has no sacramental visible 
 signs ; it is mainly a question of intention. Who would 
 say that the architriclinus at the wedding feast who said, 
 " Thou hast kept the good wine until now," was teaching 
 the Christian world, though the words have a great ethical 
 and evangelical sense ? What is the worth of a signature, 
 if a man does not consider he is signing ? The Pope can; 
 not address his people East and West, North and South, 
 without meaning it, as if his very voice, the sounds from 
 his lips, could literally be heard from pole to pole ; nor can 
 he exert his " Apostolical authority " without knowing he 
 is doing so ; nor can he draw up a form of words and use 
 care and make an effort in doing so accurately, without 
 intention to do so ; and, therefore, no words of Honorius pro- 
 ceeded from his prerogative of infallible teaching, which were 
 not accompanied with the intention of exercising that prero- 
 gative ; 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 intend to exert 
 that infallible teaching voice which has been dogmatically - 
 recognized in the nineteenth ? 
 
 What resemblance do these letters of his, written almost 
 as private instructions, bear to the "Pius Episcopus, Servus 
 Servorum Dei, Sacro approbante Concilio, ad perpetuam rei 
 memoriam," with the " Si quis huic nostrse definitioni contra- 
 dicere, (quod Deus avertat), Tprsaswrnpsexit, anathema' sit" of 
 the Fastor ^ternus'i What to the "Venerabilibus fratri- 
 bus, Patriarchis, primatibus, Archiepiscopis, et Episcopis 
 universis" &c., and with the date and signature, " Datum 
 Eomse apud Sanctum Petrum, Die 8 Dec. anno 1864, &c. 
 Pius P.P. IX." of the Quantd curdf 
 
 Secondly, it is no part of our doctrine, as I shall say 
 in my next section, that the discussions previous to a 
 Council's definition, or to an ex Cathedrd utterance of a 
 
THE VATIC AK COUNCIL. 109 
 
 Pope, are infallible, and these letters of Honorius on their 
 very face are nothing more than portions of a discussion 
 with a view to some final decision. 
 
 For these two reasons the condemnation of Honorius 
 by the Council in no sense compromises the doctrine of 
 Papal Infallibility. At the utmost it only decides that 
 Honorius in his own person w^as a heretic, which is incon- 
 sistent with no Catholic doctrine ; but we may rather hope 
 and believe that the anathema fell, not upon him, but upcm 
 his letters in their objective sense,, he not intending per- 
 sonally what his letters legitimately expressed. 
 
 4. I have one more remark to make upon the argu- 
 mentative method by which the Vatican Council was car- 
 ried on to its definition. The Pastor ^ternus refers to 
 various witnesses as contributing their evidence towards 
 the determination of the contents of the depositum, such 
 as Tradition, the Fathers and Councils, History, and espe- 
 cially Scripture. For instance, the Bull, speaks of the 
 Gospel (" juxta Evangelu testimonia," c. l) and of Scripture 
 " manifesta S.S. Scripturarum doctrina," c. 1 : " apertis S.S. 
 Literarum testimoniis," c. 3. "S.S. Scripturis consentanea," 
 c. 4.) And it lays an especial stress on three passages of 
 Scripture in particular — viz., "Thou art Peter," &c., Mat- 
 thew xvi, 16-19; "I have prayed for thee," «fee, Luke 
 xxii., 32, and "Feed My sheep," &c., John xxi., 15-17. 
 Now I wish all objectors to our method of reasoning 
 from Scripture Would view it in the light of the following 
 passage in the great philosophical work of Butler, Bishop 
 of Durham. 
 
 He writes as follows — "As it is owned the whole scheme 
 of Scripture is not yet understood, so, if it ever comes to 
 be understood, before the ' restitution of all things,' and 
 without miraculous interpositions, it must be in the same 
 way as natural knowledge is come at, by the continuance 
 and progress of learning and of liberty, and by particular 
 persons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations 
 scattered up and down it, which are overlooked and dis- 
 regarded by the generality of the world. For this is the 
 way in which all improvements are made by thoughtful 
 
110 THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 
 
 men tracing on obscure hints, as it were, dropped us by 
 nature accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds 
 by chance. Nor is it at all incredible that a book, which 
 has been so long in the possession of mankind, should contain 
 many truths as yet undiscovered. For all the same phe- 
 nomena, and the same faculties of investigation, from 
 which such great discoveries in natural knowledge have 
 been made in the present and last age, were equally in the 
 possession of mankind several thousand years before. And 
 possibly it might be intended that events, as they come to 
 pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of several 
 parts of Scripture," ii. 3, vide also ii. 4, fin. 
 
 What has the long history of the contest for and 
 against the Pope's infallibility been, but a growing insight 
 through centuries into the meaning of those three texts, to 
 which I just now referred, ending at length by the Church's 
 definitive recognition of the doctrine thus gradually mani- 
 fested to her ? 
 
Ill 
 
 § 9 The Vatican Definition. 
 
 Now I am to speak of the Vatican definition, by which 
 the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility has become defide, 
 that is, a truth necessary to be believed, as being included 
 in the original divine revelation, for those terms, revela- 
 tion, d&positum, dogma, and dejide, are correlatives ; and I 
 begin with a remark which suggests the drift of all I have 
 to say about it. It is this : — that so difficult a virtue is 
 faith, even with the special grace of God, in proportion as 
 the reason is exercised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly 
 to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor 
 experience, but depending for their reception oti the word 
 of the Church as God's oracle, that she has ever shown the 
 utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of 
 truths and the sense of propositions, of which she demands 
 this absolute reception. " The Church," says Pallavicini, 
 " as far as may be, has ever abstained from imposing upon 
 the minds of men that commandment, the most arduous 
 of the Christian Law — viz., to believe obscure matters 
 without doubting."* To co-operate in this charitable duty 
 has been one special work of her theologians, and rules are 
 laid down by herself, by tradition, and by custom, to assist 
 them in the task. She only speaks when it is necessary 
 to speak ; but hardly has she spoken out magisterially some 
 great general principle, when she sets her theologians to 
 work to explain her meaning in the concrete, by strict 
 interpretation of its wording, by the illustration of its 
 circumstances, and by the recognition of exceptions, in 
 order to make it as tolerable as possible, and the least of a 
 temptation, to self-willed, independent, or wrongly edu- 
 cated minds. A few years ago it was the fashion among us to 
 
 * Quoted by Father Ryder, (to whom I am indebted for other of my 
 references,) in his "Idealism in Theology," p. 25. 
 
112 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 call writersj who conformed to this rule of the Church, by 
 the name of "Minimizers;" that day of tyrannous ?j3se- 
 dixits, I trust, is over : Bishop Fessler, a man of high 
 authority, for he was Secretary General of the Vatican 
 Council, and of higher authority still in his work, for it 
 has the approbation of . the Sovereign Pontiif, clearly 
 proves to us that a moderation of doctrine, dictated by 
 charity, is not inconsistent with soundness in the faith. 
 Such a -sanction, I suppose, will be considered sufficient 
 for the character of the remarks which I am about to make 
 upon definitions in general, and upon the Vatican in par- 
 ticular. 
 
 The Vatican definition, which comes to us in the shape 
 of the Pope's Encyclical Bull called the Pastor JEternus, 
 declares that "the Pope has that same infallibility which the 
 Church has:"^^" to determine therefore what is meant by 
 the infallibility of the Pope we must turn first to consi- 
 der the infallibility of the Church. And again, to deter- 
 mine the character of the Church's infallibility, we must 
 consider what is the characteristic of Christianity, consi- 
 dered as a revelation of God's will. 
 
 Our Divine Master might have communicated" to us 
 heaverily truths without telling us that they came from 
 Him, as it is commonly thought He has done in the 
 case of heathen nations ; but He willed the Gospel to 
 be a revelation acknowledged and authenticated, to be 
 public, fixed, and permanent ; and accordingly, as Catholics 
 hold, He framed a Society of men to be its home, its in- 
 strument, and its guarantee. The rulers of that Association 
 are the legal trustees, so to say, of the sacred truths which 
 He spoke to the Apostles by word of mouth. As He was 
 leaving them. He gave them their great commission, and 
 bade them "teach" their converts all over the earthy " to ob- 
 serve all things whatever He had commanded them;" 
 and then He added, " Lo, I am with you always, even 
 to the end of the world." 
 
 * Romanum Pontificemea iufallibilitate pollere, qui divinus Eedemp- 
 tor Ecclesiam suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam 
 
 esse volu.it. 
 
THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 113 
 
 Here, first, He told them to "teach" His revealed 
 Truth ; next, " to the consummation of all things ; " 
 thirdly, for their encouragement, He said that He would 
 be with them "all days," all along, on every emergency 
 or occasion, untU that consummation. They had a duty 
 put upon them of teaching their Master's words, a duty 
 which they could not fulfil in the - perfection which fide- 
 lity required, without His help ; therefore came His pro- 
 mise to be with them in their performance of it. Nor 
 did that promise of supernatural help end with the 
 Apostles personally, for He adds, "to the consummation 
 of the world," implying that the Apostles would have 
 successors, and engaging that He would be with those 
 successors as He had been with them. 
 
 The same safeguard of the Eevelation — viz., an autho- 
 ritative, permanent tradition of teaching is insisted on 
 by an informant of equal authority with St. Matthew, 
 but altogether independent of him, I mean St. Paul. 
 He calls the Church " the pillar and ground of the Truth ;" 
 and he bids his convert Timothy, when he had become a 
 ruler in that Church, to " take heed unto his doctrine," to 
 " keep the deposit " of the faith, and to " commit" the things 
 which he had heard from himself "to faithful men who 
 should be fit to teach others." 
 
 This is how Catholics understand the Scripture record, 
 nor does it appear how it can otherwise be understood ; but, 
 when we have got as far as this, and look back, we find 
 that we have by implication made profession of a further 
 doctrine. For, if the Church, initiated by the Apostles 
 and continued in their successors, has been set up for 
 the direct object of protecting, preserving, and declaring 
 the Revelation, and that by means of the Guardianship and 
 Providence of itsDivihe Author, we are led on to perceive that, 
 in asserting this, we are in other words asserting, that, so 
 far as the revealed message is concerned, the Church is 
 infallible ; for what is meant by infallibility in teach- 
 ing but that the teacher in his teaching is secured from 
 error 1 and how can fallible man be thus secured except by 
 a supernatural infallible guidance ? And what can have 
 
 H 
 
114 THE VATIOAUr DEFINITION. 
 
 been the object of the words, " I am with you all along to 
 the end," but to give thereby an answer by anticipation to 
 the spontaneous, silent alarm of the feeble company of 
 fishermen and labourers, to whom they were addressed, on 
 their finding themselves laden with superhuman duties 
 and responsibilities. 
 
 Such then being, in its simple outline, the infallibility of 
 the Church, such too will be the Pope's infallibility, as the 
 Vatican Fathers have defined it. And if we find that by 
 means of this outline we are able to fill out in all important 
 respects the idea of a Council's infallibility, we shall thereby 
 be ascertaining in detail what has been defined in 1870 
 about the infallibility of the Pope. With an attempt to 
 do this I shall conclude. 
 
 1. The Church has the office of teaching, and the 
 matter of that teaching is the body of doctrine, which the 
 Apostles left behind them as her perpetual possession, [f 
 a question arises as to what the Apostolic doctrine is on a 
 particular point, she has infallibility promised to her to 
 enable her to answer correctly. And, as by the teaching 
 of the Church is understood, not the teaching of this or 
 that Bishop, but their united voice, and a Council is the 
 form the Church must take, in order that all men may 
 recognize that in fact she is teaching on any point in dis- 
 pute, so in like manner the Pope must come before us in 
 some special form or posture, if he is to be understood to 
 be exercising his teaching office, and that form is called ex 
 eathedrd. This term is most appropriate, as being on one 
 occasion used by our Lord Himself. When the Jewish 
 doctors taught, they placed themselves in Moses' seat, and 
 spoke ex eathedrd ; and then, as He tells us, they were to be 
 obeyed by their people, and that, whatever were their pri- 
 vate lives or characters. " The Scribes and Pharisees," He 
 says, " are' seated on the chair of Moses : all things there- 
 fore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do ; 
 but according to their works do you net, for th«y say and 
 do not." 
 
 2. The forms, by which a General Council is identified 
 
THE VATICAN DEPmiTION. 115 
 
 ^ representing the Church herself, are too clear to Med 
 drawing out ; but what is to be that moral cathedra, or 
 teaching chair, in which the Pope sits, when he is to be 
 recognized as in the exercise of his infallible teaching % The 
 new definition answers this question. He speaks ex cathe- 
 drd, or infallibly, when he 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, 
 with the purpose of binding every member of the Church 
 to accept and believe his decision. 
 
 3, These conditions of course contract the range of 
 his infallibility most materially. Hence Billuart speaking 
 of the Pope, says, " Neither in conversation, nor in discus- 
 sion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in 
 consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which 
 he has defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private 
 deliberations, supposing he is setting forth his own 
 opinion, is the Pope infaUible," t. ii., p. IIO.''''' And for 
 this simple reason, because, on these various occasions 
 of speaking his mind, he is not in the chair of the universal 
 doctor. 
 
 4, Nor is this all ; the greater part of Billuart's nega- 
 tives refer to the Pope's utterances when he is out of the 
 Cathedra Petri, but even, when he is in it, his words do not 
 necessarily proceed from his infallibility. He has no wider 
 prerogative than a Council, and of a Council Perrone says, 
 "Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they 
 are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, 
 nor ill matters which relate to persons, nor to physical 
 matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma." 
 Prael. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. Thus, if a Council has con- 
 demned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so 
 condemning go beyond the work itself ; it did not touch 
 the persons of either. Since this holds of a Council, it also 
 holds in the case of the Pope; therefore, supposing a Pope has 
 qiaoted the so-caUed works of the Areopagite as if really 
 
 * And so Fessler : " The Pope is not infallible as a man, or a theo- 
 logian, or a priest, or a bishop, or a temporal prince, or a judge, or a 
 legisktor, or in his political views, or even in his government of the 
 Church,"— /w^roc?. 
 
116 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 genuine, there is no call on us to believe him ; nor again, 
 when he condemned Galileo's Copernicanism, unless the 
 earth's immobility has a "necessary connexion with some 
 dogmatic truth," which the present bearing of the Holy See 
 towards that philosophy virtually denies. 
 
 5. Nor is a Council infallible, even in the prefaces and 
 introductions to its definitions. There are theologians of 
 name, as Tournely and Amort,* who contend that even those 
 most instructive capitula passed in the Tridentine Coun- 
 cil, from which the Canons with anathemas are drawn up, 
 are not portions of the Church's infallible teaching ; and 
 the parallel introductions prefixed to the Vatican ana- 
 themas have an authority not greater nor less than that of 
 those capitula. 
 
 6. Such passages, however, as these are too closely 
 connected with the definitions themselves, not to be what 
 is sometimes called, by a catadhresis, " proximum fidei ;" 
 stiU, on the other hand, it is true also that, in those circum- 
 stances and surroundings of formal defiinitions, which I 
 have been speaking of, whether of a Council or a Pope, 
 there may be not only no exercise of an infallible voice, 
 but actual error. Thus, in the Third Council, a passage of 
 an heretical author was quoted in defence of the doctrine 
 defined, under the belief he was Pope Julius, and narra- 
 tives, not trustworthy, are introdviced into the Seventh. 
 
 This remark and several before it wiU become intelli- 
 gible if we consider that neither Pope nor Council are on 
 a level with the Apostles. To the Apostles the whole 
 revelation was given, by the Church it is transmitted; 
 no simply new truth has been given to us since St. 
 John's death ; the one office of the Church is to guard 
 " that noble deposit " of truth, as St. Paul speaks to 
 Timothy, which the Apostles bequeathed to her, in its 
 fulness and integrity. Hence the infallibility of the 
 Apostles was of a far more positive and wide character 
 than that needed by and granted to the Church. We call it, 
 in the case of the Apostles, inspiration ; in the case of the 
 Church assistentia. 
 
 * Vid. Amort. Dem. Cr., pp. 305—6", This applies to the Unan) 
 Sanctam, vid. Ff-aalB — — 
 
THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 117 
 
 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 more directly 
 to its rulers, when solemnly called together in Council after 
 much prayer throughout Christendom, and in a frame of 
 mind especially serious and earnest by reason of the work 
 they have in hand. The Paraclete certainly is ever with 
 them, and more effectively in a Council, as being " in Spi- 
 ritu Saneto congregata ;" but I speak of the special and 
 promised aid necessary for their fidelity to Apostolic teach- 
 ing ; and, in order to secure this fidelity, no inward gift of 
 infallibility is needed, such as the Apostles had, no direct 
 suggestion of divine truth, but simply an external guardian- 
 ship, keeping them off from error (as a man's Guardian 
 Angel, without enabling him to walk, might, on a 
 night journey, keep him from pitfalls in his way), a guar- 
 dianship saving them, as far as their ultimate decisions are 
 concerned, from the effects of their inherent infirmities, 
 from any chance of extravagance, of confusion of thought, 
 of collision with former decisions or with Scripture, which 
 in seasons of excitement might reasonably be feared. 
 
 " Never," says Perrone, " have Catholics taught that 
 the gift of infallibility is given by God to the Church after 
 the manner of inspiration." — t. 2, p. 253. Again: "[Humanj 
 media of arriving at the truth are excluded neither by a 
 Council's nor by a Pope's infallibility, for God has pro- 
 mised it, not by way of an infused " or habitual " gift, but 
 by the way of assistentia." — ibid. p. 541. 
 
 But since the process of defining truth is human, 
 it is open to the chance of error ; what Providence has 
 guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in 
 the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma. 
 
 7. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the 
 Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the special 
 question which he happens to be considering ; his prero- 
 gative does not extend beyond a power, when in his 
 Cathedra, of giving that very answer truly. " Nothing," 
 says Perrone, " but the objects of dogmatic definitions of 
 Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, 
 
 ■nx-t- ,vi +>iaTT> fpnsnns " ^c. — ibid. 
 
118 THE VATICAN DEFINITION, 
 
 8. This rule is s6 Strictly to be dbservfed that, though 
 dogmatic statements are found from time to time itt a 
 Pope's Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they ate not accounted 
 to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said Only 
 obiter-'^hj the way, and without direct intention to define. 
 A striking instance of this sine qua non Condition is 
 afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a lettei* to the Bulga» 
 rians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered 
 simply in our Lord's Name, without distinct mention of 
 the Three Persons • but he is not teaching and Speaking 
 ex cathedrd, because no question on this matter Was 
 in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question 
 asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism— viz., 
 whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize ; in answer- 
 ing in the affirmative, he added obiter, as a private doctor, 
 says BeUarmine, " that the baptism was valid, whether 
 administered in the name of the three Persons or in the 
 name of Christ only." (de Ror/l. Font, iv, 12.) 
 
 9. Another limitation is given in Pope Pius's own con^ 
 ditions set downin the Pastor jiEternus, for the exercise of infal- 
 libility : viz., the proposition defined will be without any claim 
 to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless 
 it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the 
 channel either of Scripture or Tradition ; and, though the 
 Pope is the judge whether it is so referable or not, yet the 
 necessity of his professing to abide by this reference is in itself 
 a certain limitation of his dogmatic action. A Protestant 
 
 ' will object indeed that, after his distinctly asserting that 
 the Immaculate Conception and the Papal Infallibility are 
 in Scripture and Tradition, this safeguard against erroneous 
 definitions is not worth much, nor do I say that it is one 
 of the most effective ; but any how, in consequence Of it, 
 no Pope any more than a Council, could, for instance, intro- 
 duce Ignatius's Epistles into the Canon of Scripture ; — and, 
 as to his dogmatic condemnation of particular books, which, 
 of course, are foreign to Xk%depositum, I would Say, that, as to 
 their false doctrine there can be no difficulty in condemning 
 that, by means of that Apostolic deposit; nor surely in his 
 condemning the very wording, in Which they convey it, when 
 
THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 119 
 
 the subject is carefully considered. For the Pope's con- 
 deiflning the language, for instance, of Jansenius is a parallel 
 act to the Church's receiving the word " Consubstantial," 
 and if a Council and the Pope Were not infallible so far in 
 their judgment of language, neither Pope nor Council 
 could draw up a dogmatic definition at all, for the right 
 exercise of words is involved in the right exercise of 
 thought. 
 
 lOi And in like manner, as regards the precepts con- 
 cerning moral duties, it is not iu eVery such precept that the 
 Pope is infaUible. As a definition of faith must be drawn 
 from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it 
 may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in 
 the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to 
 be accepted as dogmatic, must be drawn from the Moral 
 law, that primary revelation to us from God. 
 
 That is, in the first place, it raust relate to things in 
 themselves good or evil. If the Pope prescribed lying or 
 revenge, his command would simply go for nothing, as if he 
 had not issued it, because he has no power over the Moral 
 Law. If he forbade his flock to eat any but vegetable 
 food, or to dress in a particular fashion (questions of de- 
 cency and modesty not coming into the question), he would 
 in hke manner be going beyond his province, because such 
 a rule does not relate to a matter in itself good or bad. If 
 he gave a precept all over the world for the adoption of lot- 
 teries instead of tithes or ofierings, certainly it would be very 
 hard to prove, that he was contradicting the Moral Law, or 
 ruling a practice to be in itself good which was in itself 
 evil. ' There are few persons but would allow that it is at 
 least doubtful whether lotteries are abstractedly evil, and 
 in a doubtful matter the Pope is to be believed and obeyed. 
 However, there are other conditions besides this, neces- 
 sary for the exercise of Papal infallibility in moral subjects : — 
 for instance, his definition must relate to things necessary for 
 salvation. No one would 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 the range of his prerogative. 
 
120 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 And again, his infallibility in consequence is not called 
 into exercise, unless he speaks to the whole world ; for, if 
 his precepts, in order to be dogmatic, must enjoin what is 
 necessary to salvation, they must be necessary for aU men. 
 Accordingly orders which issue from him for the observ- 
 ance of particular countries, or political or religious classes, 
 have no claim to be the utterances of his infallibility. If 
 he enjoins upon the hierarchy of Ireland to withstand 
 mixed education, this is no exercise of his infaUibUity. 
 
 It may be added that the field of morals contains so 
 little that is unknown and unexplored, in contrast with 
 revelation and doctrinal fact, which form the domain of 
 faith, that it is difficult to say what portions of moral 
 teaching in the course of 1800 years actually have pro- 
 ceeded from the Pope, or from the Church, or where 
 to look for such. Nearly all that either oracle has 
 done in this respect, has been to condemn such pro- 
 positions as in a moral point of view are false, or dangerous, 
 of rash ; and these condemnations, besides being such as 
 in fact, will be found to' command the assent of most men, 
 as soon as heard, do not necessarily go so far as to pre- 
 sent any positive statements for universal acceptance. 
 
 11. With the mention of condemned propositions I 
 am brought to- another and large consideration, which is 
 one of the best illustrations that I can give of that prin- 
 ciple of minimizing so necessary, as I think, for a wise 
 and cautious theology ; at the same time I cannot insist 
 upon it in the connexion into which I am going to intro- 
 duce it, without submitting myself to the correction of 
 divines more learned than I can pretend to be myself 
 
 The infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope, 
 acts principally or solely in two channels, in direct state- 
 ments of truth, and in the condemnation of error. The 
 former takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter 
 stigmatizes propositions as heretical, next to heresy, erro- 
 neous, and the like. In each case the Church, as 
 guided by her Divine Master, has made provision for 
 weighing as lightly as possible on the faith and conscience of 
 her children. 
 
THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 121 
 
 ^ As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells 
 us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, 
 or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blas- 
 phemous, or impious, or whatever other epithet she affixes 
 to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow our- 
 selves to be warned against the thesis, or the work con- 
 taining it. Theologians employ themselves in determining 
 what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or 
 treatise ; and doubtless in most cases they do so with suc- 
 cess ; but that determination is not de fide ; all that is 
 of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, 
 heresy or error, or other peccant matter, as the case may 
 be, such, that the censure is a peremptory command 
 to theologians, preachers, students, and all other whom it 
 concerns, to keep clear of it. But so light is this obliga- 
 tion, that instances frequently occur, when it is success- 
 fully maintained by some new writer, that the Pope's act 
 does not imply what it has seemed to imply, and ques- 
 tions which seemed to be closed, are after a course of 
 years re-opened. In discussions such as these, there is 
 a real exercise of private judgment, and an allowable 
 one ; the act of faith, which cannot be superseded or 
 trifled with, being, I repeat, the unreserved acceptance 
 that the thesis in question is heretical, or erroneous in faith, 
 &e., as the Pope or the Church has spoken of it. 
 
 In these cases which in a true sense may be called 
 the Pope's negative enunciations, the opportunity of a 
 legitimate minimizing lies in the intensely concrete cha- 
 racter of the matters condemned ; in his affirmative enun- 
 ciations a like opportunity is afforded by their being more 
 or less abstract. Indeed, excepting such as relate to 
 persons, that is, to the Trinity in Unity, the Blessed 
 Virgin, the Saints, and the like, all the dogmas of Pope 
 or of Council are but general, and so far, in consequence, 
 admit of exceptions in their actual application, — these 
 exceptions being determined either by other authoritative 
 utterances, or by the scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, 
 and subtlety of the Sckola Theologorum. 
 
 One of the most remarkable instances of what I am 
 
122 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 insisting on is found in a dogma, which no Catholie can 
 ever think of disputing, vi2., that " Out of the Church, 
 and out of the faith, is no salvation." Not to go to 
 Scripture, it is the doctrine of St. Ignatius, St. Irenseus, 
 St. Cyprian in the first three centuries, as of St. Augus- 
 tine and his contemporaries in the fourth and fifth. It 
 can never be other than an elementai-y truth of Christi- 
 anity; and the present Pope has proclaimed it as all 
 Popes, doctors, and bishops before him. But that truth 
 has two aspects, according as the force of the negative 
 falls upon the " Church " or upon the " salvation." The 
 main sense is, that there is no other communion or so- 
 called Church, but the Catholic, in which are stored the 
 promises, the sacraments and other means of salvation ; 
 the other and derived sense is, that no one can be saved 
 who is not in that one and only Church. But it does 
 not follow, because there is no Church but one which 
 has the Evangelical gifts and privileges to bestow, that 
 therefore no one can be saved without the intervention 
 of that one Church. Anglicans quite understand this 
 distinction ; for, on the one hand, their Article says, 
 " They are to be had accursed (anathematizandi) that 
 presume to say, that every man shall be saved hy (in) 
 the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be dili- 
 gent to frame his life according to that law and the light 
 of nature ;" while on the other, hand they speak of and 
 hold the doctrine of the " uncovenanted mercies of God." 
 The latter doctrine in its Catholic form is the doctrine of 
 invincible ignorance — or, that it is possible to beloiQg to 
 the soul of the Church without belonging to the bddy ; 
 and, at the end of 1,800 years, it has been formally 
 and authoritatively put forward by the present Pope 
 (the first Pope, I suppose, who has done so,) on the 
 very same occasion on which he has repeated the funda^ 
 mental principle of exclusive salvation itself. It is to the 
 purpose here to quote his words ; they occur in the course 
 of his Encyclical, addressed to the Bishops of Italy, under 
 date of August 10, 1863. 
 
 *' We and you know, that those who lie under invin- 
 
THE Vatican definition. 128 
 
 cible igtioranee as regards oui' most Hdly Eeligion, and 
 wh(5i diligently observing the natural law, and its precepts, 
 wMch. ar6 engraven by God on th,© hearts of all, and pre- 
 pared to obey God, lead a good and upright life, are able, 
 by the operation of the power of divine light and gracg, to 
 obtain eternal life."* 
 
 Who would at first sight gather from the Wording of 
 so forcible a universal, that an exception to its operation, 
 such &,s thiSj so distinct, and, for what we know, so Very 
 wide, was consistent with holding it 1 
 
 Another instance of a similar kind is the general 
 acceptance in the Latin Church, since the time of St. Augus- 
 tine, of the doctrine of absolute predestination, as instanced 
 in the teaching of other great saints besides him, such as 
 St. Fulgentius, St. Prosper, St. Gregory, St. Thomas, 
 and St. Buonaventure. Yet in the last centuries a 
 great explanation and modification of this doctrine has 
 been effected by the eff'orts of the Jesuit School, which have 
 issued in the reception of a distinction between predestina- 
 tion to grace and predestination to glory ; and a conse- 
 quent admission of the principle that, though our own 
 works do not avail for bringing us into a state of salvation 
 on earth, they do avail, when in that state of salvation or 
 grace, for our attainment of eternal glory in heaven. Two 
 saints of late centuries, St. Francis de Sales and St. Alfonso, 
 seem to have professed this less rigid opinion, which is now 
 the more common doctrine of the day. 
 
 Another instance is supplied by the Papal decisions 
 concerning Usury. Pope Clement V., in the Council of 
 Vienne, declares, " If any one shall have fallen into the 
 error of pertinaciously presuming to affirm that usury 
 is no sin, we determine that he is to be punished as a 
 heretic." However, in the year 1831 the Sacred Pceniten- 
 tidria answered an inquiry on the subject, to the effect that 
 
 * The Pope speaks more forcibly still in an earlier Allocution. After 
 ibentioning invincible ignorance he adds :— " Quis tantum sibi arroget, ut 
 hujiismodi ignorautise designare limites queat, juxta populorum, regio- 
 num, ingeniorum, aliarumque ferum tam multarum rationem et varie^ 
 tatem ? "— 2>ec. 9, 1854. 
 
124 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 the Holy See suspended its decision on the point, and that 
 a confessor who allowed of usury was not to be disturbed, 
 "non esse inquietandum." Here again a double aspect 
 seems to have been realized of the idea intended by the 
 word usury. 
 
 To shoM' how natural this process of partial and gra^ 
 dually developed teaching is, we may refer to the apparent 
 contradiction of Bellarmine, who says " the Pope, whether 
 he can err or not, is to be oi)eyed by all the faithful," (Rom. 
 Pont. iv. 2), yet, as I have quoted him above, p. 52-53, sets 
 down (ii. 29) cases in which he is not to be obeyed. 
 An illustration may be given in political history in the dis- 
 cussions which took place years ago as to the force of the 
 Sovereign's Coronation Oath to uphold the Established 
 Church. The words were large and general, and seemed to 
 preclude any act on his part to the prejudice of the Estab- 
 lishment ; but lawyers succeeded at length in making a 
 distinction between the legislative and executive action of 
 the Crown, which is now generally accepted. 
 
 These instances out of many similar are sufficient to 
 show what caution is to be observed, on the part of private 
 and unauthorized persons, in imposing upon the consciences 
 of others any interpretation of dogmatic enunciations which 
 is beyond the legitimate sense of the words, inconsistent 
 with the principle that aU general rules have exceptions, 
 and unrecognized by the Theological Schola. 
 
 12. From these various considerations it follows, that 
 Papal and Synodal definitions, obligatory on our faith, are 
 of rare occurrence ; and this is confessed by all sober theo- 
 logians. Father O'EeiUy, for instance, of Dublin, one of 
 the first theologians of the day, says : — 
 
 " The Papal Infallibility is comparatively seldom 
 brought into action. I am very far from denying that the 
 Yicar of Christ is largely assisted by God in the fulfilment 
 of his sublime ofiice, that he receives great light and strength 
 to do well the great work entrusted to him and imposed on 
 him, that he is continually guided from above in the govern- 
 ment of the Catholic Church. But this is not the meaning 
 of Infallibility. . . What is the use of dragging in the InfaUi- 
 
THE VATICAK DEFINITION. 125 
 
 bility in connexion with Papal acts with which it has nothing 
 to do ? Papal acts, which are very good and very 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 infallible in the only 
 sense in which he has been declared to be so." (The Irish 
 Monthly, Vol. ii. No. 10, 1874.)* 
 
 This great authority goes on to disclaim any desire 
 to minimize, but there is, I hope, no real difference be- 
 tween us here. He, I am sure, would sanction me in my 
 repugnance to impose upon the faith of others more 
 than what the Church distinctly claims of them : and I 
 should follow him in thinking it a more scriptural, Chris- 
 tian, dutiful, happy frame of mind, to be easy, than to 
 be difficult, of belief. I have already spoken of that un- 
 catholic spirit, which starts with a grudging faith in the 
 word of the Church, and determines to hold nothing but 
 what it is, as if by demonstration, compelled to believe. 
 To be a true Catholic a man must have a generous loy- 
 alty towards ecclesiastical authority, and accept what is 
 taught him with what is called the pietas Jidei, and only 
 such a tone of mind has a claim, and it certainly has a 
 claim, to be met and to be handled with a wise and 
 gentle minimism. Still the fact remains, that there has 
 been of late years a fierce and intolerant temper abroad, 
 which scorns and virtually tramples on the little ones of 
 Christ. 
 
 I end with an extract from the Pastoral of the Swiss 
 Bishops, a Pastoral which has received the Pope's approba- 
 tion. 
 
 "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, 
 or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doc- 
 trine, 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 hmited by the 
 
 * fid. Fessler also ; and I believe Fatlier Perrone says the same. 
 
126 THE VATICAN DEFINITION. 
 
 Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding defini^ 
 tions of the Church- He is tied up and linaited by the 
 divirie law, and by the constitution of the Church, Lastly, 
 he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, 
 which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil 
 society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, there is 
 the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own 
 domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe 
 obedience in conscience, and respect in all things morally 
 permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society." 
 
127 
 
 § 10. Conclusion. 
 
 I have now said all that I consider necessary in order 
 to fulfil the task which I have undertaken, a task very 
 painful to me and ungracious. I account it a great mis- 
 fortune, that my last words, as they are likely to be, should 
 be devoted to a controversy with one whom I have always so 
 much respected and admired. But I should not have been 
 satisfied with myself, if I had not responded to the call 
 made upon me from such various quarters, to the opportu- 
 nity at last given me of breaking 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 against 
 us is that in 1870, after a series of preparatory acts, a 
 great change and irreversible was efiected in the political 
 attitude of the Church by the third and fourth chapters 
 of the Vatican Pastor yEterniis, a change which no state 
 or statesman can afi"ord to pass over. Of this cardinal 
 assertion I consider he has given no proof at all ; and my 
 object throughout the foregoing pages has been to make 
 this clear. The Pope's infallibihty indeed and his supreme 
 authority have in the Vatican capita been declared matters 
 of faith ; but his prerogative of infallibility lies in matters 
 speculative, and his prerogative of authority is no in- 
 faUibility, in laws, commands, or measures. His infal- 
 libility bears upon the domain of thought, not directly of 
 action, and while it may fairly exercise the theologian, philo- 
 sopher, or man of science, it scarcely concerns the politician. 
 Moreover, whether tke recognition of his infallibility in 
 doctrine will increase his actual power over the faith of 
 Catholics, remains to be seen, and must be determined 
 by the event ; for there are gifts too large and too fearful 
 to be handled freely. Mr. Gladstone seems to feel this, 
 and therefore insists upon the increase made by the Vati- 
 
128 CONCLUSION. 
 
 can definition in the Pope's authority. But there is no 
 real increase ; he has for centuries upon centuries had and 
 used that authority, which the Definition now declares 
 ever to have belonged to him. Before t]p.e Council there 
 was the rule of obedience, and there were exceptions to 
 the rule ; and since the Council the rule remains, and with 
 it the possibility of exceptions. 
 
 It may be objected that a representation such as this, 
 is negatived by the universal sentiment, which testifies 
 to the formidable efi'ectiveness of the Vatican decrees, 
 and to the Pope's intention that they should be effective ; 
 that it is the boast of some Catholics and the reproach 
 levelled against us by all Protestants, that the Catholic 
 Church has now become beyond mistake a despotic aggres- 
 sive Papacy, in which freedom of thought and action is 
 utterly extinguished. But I do not allow this alleged 
 unanimous testimony to exist. Of course Prince Bismarck 
 and other statesmen such as Mr. Gladstone, rest their oppo- 
 sition to Pope Pius on the political ground ; but the Old- 
 Catholic movement is based, not upon politics, but upon 
 theology, and Dr. DoUinger has more than once, I believe, 
 declared his disapprobation of the Prussian acts against the 
 Pope, while Father Hyacinth has quarrelled with the anti- 
 Catholic politics of Geneva. The French indeed have shown 
 their sense of the political support which the Holy Father's 
 name and influence would bring to their country ; but does 
 any one suppose that they expect to derive support defi- 
 nitely from the Vatican decrees, and not rather from the 
 prestige of that venerable Authority, which those decrees 
 have rather lowered than otherwise in the eyes of the world ? 
 So again the Legitimists and Carlists in France and_ Spain 
 doubtless wish to associate themselves with Rome ; but 
 where and how have they signified that they can turn to 
 profit the special dogma of the Pope's infallibility, and 
 would not have been better pleased to be rid of the con- 
 troversy which it has occasioned *? In fact, instead of there 
 being a universal impression that the proclamation of his 
 infallibility and supreme authority has strengthened the 
 Pope's secular position in Europe, there is room for sus- 
 
eONOLDSION. 129 
 
 pecting that some of the politicians of the day, (I do not 
 mean Mr. Gladstone) were not sorry that the Ultramontane 
 party was successful at the Council in their prosecu- 
 tion of an object which those politicians considered to be 
 favourable to the interests of the Civil Power. There is 
 certainly some plausibility in the view, that it is not the 
 " Curia Eomana," as Mr. Gladstone considers, or the 
 ' Jesuits," who are the " astute " party, but that rather 
 they are themselves victims of the astuteness of secular 
 statesmen. 
 
 The recognition, which I am here implying, of the exist- 
 ence of parties in the Church reminds me of what, while I 
 have been writing these pages, I have all along felt would be 
 at once the primd facie and also the most telling criticism 
 upon me. It wiU be said that there are very consider- 
 able differences in argument and opinion between me and 
 others who have replied to Mr. Gladstone, and I shall be 
 taunted with the evident break-down, thereby made mani- 
 fest, of that topic of glorification so commonly in the 
 mouths of Catholics, that they are aU of one way of think- 
 ing, while Protestants are all at variance with each other, 
 and by that very variation of opinion can have no ground 
 of certainty severally in their own. 
 
 This is a showy and serviceable retort in controversy ; 
 but it is nothing more. First, as regards the arguments 
 which Catholics use, it has to be considered whether they 
 are reaUy incompatible with each other ; if they are not, 
 then surely it is generally granted by Protestants as well 
 as Catholics, that two distinct arguments for the same 
 conclusion, instead of invalidating that conclusion, ac- 
 tually strengthen it. And next, supposing the difference 
 to be one of conclusions themselves, then it must be con- 
 sidered whether, the difference relates to a matter of faith 
 or to a matter of opinion. If a matter of faith is in ques- 
 tion I grant there ought to be absolute agreement, or 
 rather I maintain that there is ; I mean to say that only 
 one out of the statements put forth can be true, and that 
 the other statements will be at once withdrawn by their 
 authors, by virtue of their being Catholics, as soon as they 
 
 I 
 
130 CONCLUSION, 
 
 learn on good authority that they are erroneous. But if 
 the differences which I have supposed are only in theolo- 
 gical opinion, they do but show that after all private judg- 
 ment is not so utterly unknown among Catholics and in 
 Catholic Schools, as Protestants are desirous to establish. 
 
 I have written on this subject at some length in Lec- 
 tures which I published many years ago, but, it would 
 appear, with little practical effect upon those for whom 
 they were intended. " Left to himself," I say, " each Ca- 
 tholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and his 
 private judgment just as much as a Protestant ; and he 
 has it and he maintains it, just so far as the Church does 
 not, by the authority of Revelation, supersede it. The 
 very moment the Church ceases to speak, at the very point 
 at which she, that is, God who speaks by her, circumscribes 
 her range of teaching, then private judgment of necessity 
 starts up ; there is nothing to hinder it. ... A Catholic 
 sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, declared through 
 His Church ; but from the nature of the case, there is no- 
 thing to hinder him having his own opinion and express- 
 ing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, the oracle of 
 Eevelation, does not speak* 
 
 In saying this, it must not be supposed that I am de- 
 nying what is called the pietas fdei, that is, a sense of the 
 great probability of the truth of enunciations made by the 
 Church, which are not formally and actually to be considered 
 as the " Word of God. " Doubtless it is our duty to check jnany 
 a speculation, or at least many an utterance, even though 
 we are not bound to condemn it as contrary to religious 
 tiuth. But, after all, the field of religious thought which 
 the duty of faith occupies, is small indeed compared with 
 that which is open to our free, though of course to our reve- 
 rent and conscientious, speculation. 
 
 I draw from these remarks two conclusions ; first as 
 regards Protestants, — Mr. Gladstone should not on the one 
 hand declaim against us as having " no mental freedom," 
 if the periodical press on the other hand is to mock us 
 as admitting a liberty of private judgment, purely Pro- 
 
 * Vide " Difficulties felt by Anglicaps." Lecture X, 
 
CONCLUSION. 131 
 
 testant. We surely are not open to contradictory imputa- 
 tions. Every note of triumph over the differences which 
 mark our answers to - Mr. Gladstone is a distinct admis- 
 sion that we do not deserve his injurious reproach that 
 we are captives and slaves of the Pope. 
 
 Secondly, for the benefit of some Catholics, I would 
 observe that, while I acknowledge one Pope, jure divino, I 
 acknowledge no other, and that I think it a usurpation, 
 too wicked to be comfortably dwelt upon, when in- 
 dividuals use their own private judgment, in the discussion 
 of religious questions, not simply " abundare in suo sensu," 
 but for the purpose of anathematizing the private judgment 
 of others. 
 
 I say there is only one Oracle of God, the Holy Ca- 
 tholic Church and the Pope as -her head. To her teaching 
 I have ever desired all my thoughts, aU my words to be 
 conformed ; to her judgment I submit what I have now 
 written, what I have ever written, not only as regards its 
 truth, but as to its prudence, its suitableness, and its ex- 
 pedience. I think I have not pursued any end of my own 
 in anything that I have published, but I know well, that, 
 in matters not of faith, I may have spoken, when I ought 
 to have been silent. 
 
 And now, my dear Duke, I release you from this long 
 discussion, and, in concluding, beg you to accept the best 
 Christmas wishes and prayers for your present and future 
 from 
 
 Your affectionate Friend and Servant, 
 
 JOHN HENRY NEWMAN. 
 
 The Okatory, 
 
 Bee. 27, 1874, 
 
IE 
 
 1 
 
 1