1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 
 
 Chap SXJ-ZiC:. 
 
 Sheif ,Kv3_-,._. 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 Foyc/'SS^^ 
 
 
THE 
 
 Vatican Decrees 
 
 IN THEIR BEARING ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 BY 
 
 HENRY EDWARD, vXhsiCk(vvvA*-W'l^ 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER.' 
 
 New York : 
 THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 9 WARREN STREET. 
 1875. 
 
<\° 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 •^♦^i — — . 
 
 fAXiK 
 
 Introduction, , 7 
 
 CHAPTER. 
 
 L Meaning and Effect of the ; Vatican 
 
 Decrees, ........ 17 
 
 II, The Relations of the Spiritual and Civil 
 
 Powers, 46 
 
 III. Aggressions of the Civil Power, ... 94 
 
 IV. True and False Progress, . . . 123 
 V. The Motive of the Definition, ... 148 
 
 Conclusion, 166 
 
 Appendices, ..••.•••« 171 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 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 are 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 Religion and Poli- 
 tics, none can be found more delicate, more beset 
 with misconceptions, or more prejudged by old tra- 
 ditionary beliefs and antipathies. Some of them, 
 too, are of an odious kind ; others revive memories 
 we would fain forget. And 3^et, if Mr. Gladstone's 
 appeal to me is to be answered, treated the}" 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 con- 
 tlict in Germany, and has rt^vicwcd his own contluct 
 
4 Preface. 
 
 in respect to the Revolution in Italy, I have felt my- 
 self obliged to follow him. This I have done in the 
 third and fourth chapters. Apart from this reason, I 
 felt myself bound to do so by the terms of the two 
 letters printed at the opening of the following pages. 
 I hold myself pledged to justify their contents. 
 Moreover, these two topics fall within the outline of 
 the subject treated by Mr. Gladstone, 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. 
 
 As for the manner, if it be faulty, the fault is 
 mine: and 3^et 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 control. I can blot out words, but I cannot blot 
 out truths. What I believe to be truth, that I have 
 said in the clearest words and calmest that I could 
 find to give to it adequate expression. 
 
THE VATICAN DECREES 
 
 IN THEIR BEARING 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 Alle- 
 giance.' ^ 
 
 When I read these words, I at once recognized the 
 rightof 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 tri- 
 bunal, or to any other interrogator. If, therefore, 
 I take the occasion of any such interrogation, I do 
 not address myself to. those who make it, but to the 
 justice and to the good sense of the Christian people 
 of this country. 
 
 * The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. By 
 the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. P. 43. 
 
 7 
 
8 Introduction, 
 
 Mr. Gladstone followed up this demand upon his 
 Catholic fellow-countrymen by an elaborate argu- 
 ment 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 you, 
 affecting, as it must, every Catholic in the British Empire, 
 will, I hope, obtain from your courtesy the publication 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 ac- 
 knowledge 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 teach- 
 ing, 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 Roman 
 Catholic friends and fellow-countrymen are, to say the least 
 of it, as good citizens as himself." But as the whole pam- 
 phlet is an elaborate argument to prove that the teaching of 
 the Vatican Council renders it impossible for them to be so, 
 I cannot accept this grateful acknowledgment, 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 contradic- 
 tion to this statement, and if I did not with equal prompt- 
 
Introduction. g 
 
 , ness 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 published 
 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 pos- 
 sible for Catholics to render before the promulgation of 
 those Decrees. 
 
 ' In answer to this it is for the present sufficient to 
 affirm — 
 
 ' I. 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 undivided 
 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. 
 
 * 5. The public peace of the British Empire has been 
 consolidated in the last half century by the elimination of 
 religious conflicts and inequalities from our laws. The Em- 
 pire of Germany might have been equally peaceful aiul 
 stable if its statesmen had not been tempted in an evil hour 
 to rake up the old fires of religious disunion. The hand ( f 
 one man, more than any other, threw this torch of discoid 
 into the German Empire. The history of Germany will re- 
 cord the name of Dr. Ignatius von Dollingcr as the author 
 of this national evil. I lament, not only to read the name, 
 bi}t to trace the arguments of Dr. von Pollingcr in the pamr 
 
lo Introduction, 
 
 phlet before me. May God preserve these kingdoms from 
 tlie public and private calamities which are visibly impend- 
 ing 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 controvert. 
 My desire and my duty as an Englishman, as a Catholic, and 
 as a pastor, is to claim for my flock and for myself 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. 
 
 * I^crj£7nher 7, 1S74.' 
 
 Subsequently, in reply to questions proposed to 
 
 me, I further wrote as follows : — 
 
 To the Editor of The Xezu 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 
 whole of Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet hangs on the contrarv^ 
 assertion ; and falls with it* In proof of my assertion I 
 add ^.— 
 
 * I, 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 Privilegium 
 (Longmans, 1871), I have given more than sufficient e\idence 
 of this assertion. 
 
 .* 2. That the Vatican Council simply declared an old 
 truthp, 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. 
 
Introdtiction. " 1 1 
 
 *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 what- 
 ever on the subject of the Civil Powers, nor on ciyil alle- 
 giance. 
 
 * This snbject was not so much as proposed. The civil 
 obedience of Catholics rests upon the natural law, and the 
 revealed la\V of God. Society is founded in nature, and sub- 
 jects are bound in -all things lawful to obey their rulers. 
 Society, when Christian, has higher sanctions, and -subjects 
 are bound to obey ruleis 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. 
 Dollinger and some of ^his friends. 
 
 'On public and private grounds I deeply lament this act 
 of imprudence, and but for my beliel in Mr. Gladstone's sin- 
 cerity I should say this act ot irjjustice. I lament it, as an 
 act out of all harmony and propo'tion 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 consoli- 
 dated the Christian and civil peace of these kingdoms. ThisI 
 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 ^liought it my duty 
 
1 2 Introditctian. 
 
 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 cer- 
 tain nominal Catholics, who upon other occasions 
 have done the same, would write letters to the news- 
 papers. 
 
 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 Vati- 
 can 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 Coun- 
 cil may be told on Qur fingers, aud the Catholic 
 Church has openly passed sentence on them. 
 
 Having made these declarations, I might have re- 
 mained silent ; but as in my first letter I implied tha4: 
 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 1 will endeavour to 
 deserve again the acknowledgment Mr. Gladstone 
 has already made. He says that, whatever comes, so 
 far as I am concerned, it will not be * without due 
 notice/ I will be equally outspoken now ; not be- 
 cause 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 Catho* 
 lie Church. I will not begin to do so now, when my 
 
^Introduction. 1 3 
 
 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 remem- 
 ber that Mr. Gladstone has laid me under this ne- 
 cessity in these three ways : — 
 
 1. He has made me the representative of the Ca- 
 tholic doctrine since 1870, as Bishop Doyle, 
 he says, w^as in better days. 
 
 2. He has quoted my writings four times in cen- 
 sure. 
 
 3. He has appealed to me as * Head of the Papal 
 Church in England ; ' I may also add as ' The 
 Oracle.' My words, however, shall not be 
 ambiguous. 
 
 The two letters given above contain four asser- 
 tions. 
 
 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 be- 
 gan in a malevolent and mischievous intrigue to in- 
 stigate the Civil Powers to oppress and persecute 
 the Catholic Church. 
 
14 Introduction. 
 
 The two first propositions shall be treated in the 
 first chapter, the third in the second chapter, and 
 the last in the third. 
 
 I 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 im- 
 mutably fixed from the beginning, inasmuch as 
 they arise out of the Divine Constitution of 
 the Church, and out of the Civil Society of 
 the natural order. 
 
 3. 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 
 against the Holy See. 
 
 4. That by these changes and collisions the Civil 
 Powers of Europe are destroying their own 
 stability. 
 
 5. That the motive of the Vatican Council in de- 
 fining the Infallibility of the Roman PontifT 
 was not any temporal policy, nor was it for 
 any temporal end ; but that it defined that 
 
Introdtiction. 1 5 
 
 truth in the face of all temporal dangers, in or- 
 der to guard the Divine deposit of Christian- 
 ity, and to vindicate the divine certainty of 
 faith. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE VATICAN DECREES. 
 
 L 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 Vati- 
 can Decrees have made a change in our civil allegiance 
 rests upon those who affirm it. Till they offer proof 
 we might remain silent. It would be enough for us to 
 answer that the Vatican Council in its Dogmatic Con- 
 stitution on the Church has simply affirmed the re- 
 vealed 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 obedi- 
 ence of subjects is left precisely as and where it was 
 before the Vatican Council was convened. 
 
 (i) However, I will first examine what proofs have 
 been offered 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 only 
 defined what has been believed and practised from the 
 
 17 
 
1 8 Meaning and Effect of 
 
 The arguments to prove a change are two. 
 
 First. Mr. Gladstone has argued from 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 follows : 
 
 He dwells with no little amplification upon the * in- 
 troduction of the remarkable phrase,' ^ad disciplinam 
 et regimen Ecclesiae,' into the third chapter ; that is, 
 
 * non solum in rebus quae ad fidem et mores pertinent, 
 sed etiam in iis quae ad disciplinam et regimen Eccle- 
 siae per totum orbem diffusse pertinent.' 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 dis- 
 cipline and government of the Church' (p. 41). Sub- 
 mission in faith and morals is * abject ' enough, but * in 
 discipline and government ' too is Intolerable. 'Why 
 did the astute contrivers of this tangled scheme, &c. 
 . . . (p. 39V ' The work is now truly complete ' 
 (p. 40). This he calls ' the new version of the princi- 
 ples of the Papal Church.' When I read this, I asked, 
 
 * Is It possible that Mr. Gladstone should think this 
 to be anything new ? What does he conceive the Pri- 
 macy of Rome to mean ? With what eyes has he read 
 history ? Can he have read the tradition of the Catho- 
 lic 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 
 
the Vatican Decrees. lo 
 
 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 
 disciphna, pro correctione fidelium, pro emendatione 
 sceleratorum, vel interdictione imminentium vel futu- 
 rorum malorum, a Sedis Apostolic^e Preside salubriter 
 promulgata contempserit : Anathema sit.'^ This was 
 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 Gen- 
 eral Council held at Constantinople in 869.^ 
 
 Innocent III. may be no authority with Mr. Glad- 
 stone ; but he says, what every Pontiff before him and 
 after him has said, * Nos qui sumus ad regimen Univer- 
 salis Ecclesiae, superna dispositione vocati.'^ 
 
 Again, Sixtus IV., in 1471., writes : ' Ad Universa- 
 lis Ecclesiae regimen divina disponente dementia voca- 
 tis,' ' &c. 
 
 If this be not enough, we have the Council of Flo- 
 rence, in 1442, defining of the Roman Pontiff that 
 * Ipsi in Beato Petro pascendi, regendi ac giibernandi 
 Universalem Ecclesiam a Domino nostro Jcsu Christo 
 plenam potestam traditam esse.' ^ 
 
 ' Labbc, Concil, torn. x. p. 238, cd. Vcn. 1730. 
 
 ' Ibid. torn. X. p. 633. See Petri. Privilegiuiti, end part, p. Si. 
 
 * Corpus Juris Canon. Decrct. Greg. lib. ii. cap. xiii. Novit. 
 
 * Corpus Juris Canon. Extrav. Connn. lib. i. tit. ix. cap. i. 
 
 * Labbe, Concil. torn, xviii. p. 527, cd. Vcn. 1732. 
 
20 Meanmg and Effect of 
 
 Finally the Council of Trent says: — ' Unde merito 
 Pontifices Maximi pro Suprema potestate sibi in Eccle- 
 sia 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 Catholic Church. It is as 
 universal in our law books as the forms of the Courts 
 at Westminster. The Vatican Council has left the au- 
 thority 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 
 things which pertain to discipline and government, and 
 that v/hether 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 proposition w^hich can be 
 twisted or tortured into such a meaning. The govern- 
 ment ot the Church, as here spoken of, is purely and 
 strictly the Spiritual government of souls, both pastors 
 and people, as it was exercised in the first three hun- 
 dred years before any Christian State existed. 
 
 But next, it the Vatican Council has not spoken 
 of the Civil Powers, nevertheless it has defined that the 
 
 ^ Sess. xiv. cap. vii. 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 21 
 
 Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible : this definition, 
 by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infal- 
 lible, the Bull Unain Sanctam included ; and, by pro- 
 spective 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, there- 
 fore, not more infallible after it than before. If a 
 handful of writers, here and there, denied his infalli- 
 bility, 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 Sane- 
 tamy the Bull Unigenitiis, the Bull Auctorem Fidei^ and 
 the like, were held to be infallible as fully before the 
 Vatican Council as now. 
 
 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 heretical.^ 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 ^vant 
 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 tliat 
 this is an open question among Catholics ? The 
 ^ ret7l Pjivilcgittvt, part i. pp. 61-66, and notes. 
 
2 2 Meaning and Effect of 
 
 infallibility of the Pope was likewise never defined, 
 but it was never an open question. Even the Jan- 
 senists did not venture to deny it, and the eva- 
 sion of some of them, who gave * obsequious silence ' 
 instead of internal assent to Pontifical acts, was con- 
 demned 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 difference, 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 
 w^as unimpeded before. His contention is that it is im- 
 peded now. But this is self-contradictory, for they 
 believed the same doctrine of infalHbility 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 Quirinus^ 
 and the professors of * obsequious silence,' his conten- 
 tion 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 Catho- 
 lics who always believed it before the definition was 
 made. 
 
 We are next told that there are some twelve theo- 
 ries 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 
 
the Vaticmi Decrees. 23 
 
 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 Sylla- 
 bus ^;ir ^<^///^^<3^r^ / By this showing it is 12 to I that 
 they may not be. It is an axiom in morals * Lex ditbia 
 lion obligat' But if it be doubtful whether the Sylla- 
 bus is ex cathedrUy I am not bound to receive it with 
 interior assent. Again, Mr. Gladstone thinks to aggra- 
 vate the case by adding that the Pope is to be the ulti- 
 mate judge of what acts are ex cathedra. And who 
 else should be ? Ejus est interpretari ctijiis est condcre 
 is a principle of all law. Mr. Gladstone has been act- 
 ing 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 Ponti- 
 fical act whether it be ex cathedra or not. Surely com- 
 mon 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 anything unreason- 
 able in this, all jurisprudence, including the British 
 Constitution, labours under the same uncertainty, or 
 rather the same inevitable imperfection. 
 
 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 
 
24 Meaning and Effect of 
 
 over the fourth paragraph, in which there are indeed 
 the words * potestatis saecularis placito/ This is the 
 only recognition of secular powers in the whole Con- 
 stitution. In that paragraph two things are affirmed : 
 the one that the free exercise of the supreme Spiritual 
 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 placiturn 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 innovations, I 
 will add that such was the contention of St. Thomas 
 of Canterbury against Henry H. in the case of the 
 Constitutions of Clarendon, which were not * cursed,' 
 as Mr. Gladstone delicately expresses it, but condemn- 
 ed by Alexander HI. 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 offered 
 to prove that the Council has made the alleged change 
 IS nil, I affirm, 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 Civil Allegiance 
 of Catholics is as full, perfect, and complete since 
 the Council as it was before. These are affirma- 
 
Vie Vatican Decrees. 25 
 
 tions capable of truth, and before I have done I hope 
 to prove them. For the present it will be enough to 
 give the reason v/hy 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 confi- 
 dently asserted that the Council did touch the Civil 
 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 published circulars and 
 pamphlets before and during the Council to re-assert 
 it. They first prophesied that the Council would in- 
 terfere with the Civil Powers, and now they write sci- 
 entific history to prove that it has done so. I am not 
 writing at random ; I carefully collected at the time 
 their books, pamphlets, and articles. I read them 
 punctually, and bound tliem up into volumes, which 
 arc now before me. Mr. Gladstone has reproduced 
 their arguments. But for this systematic agitation be- 
 fore 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 Avill repeat what I 
 published in the year 1869, before the Council assem- 
 bled, and in the year 1870, after the Council was 
 suspended. 
 
 Before the Council met I published these words:/— 
 
 ^'Thc CEcnmcnical Council and the Infallibility of the Koniau 
 Pontiff,' Pcfri Piivile^i^-iuriu part ii. pp. 131-5. (Longmans, 1S71.) 
 
26 2\ I caning and JbJ/cct of 
 
 * 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 Government. 
 
 ' The questions and the answers are so evidently concerted, 
 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 
 OEcumenical 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 corre- 
 spondence is a transparent effort to obstruct the freedom of the 
 OEcumenical Council on the subject of the Infallibility of the 
 Pontiff; or, if that doctrine be defined, to instigate the Civil 
 Governments to assume a hostile attitude towards the Holy 
 See. And this comes in the name of liberty, and from those 
 who tell us that the Council will not be free. 
 
 * I shall take the liberty, without further words, of 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 Holv See in matters which are 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 27 
 
 not of faith. But they do not reveal how small ihat scl)oul 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 Infalllibilty 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 faidi. 
 
 ' In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was made 
 to render impossible, as it was confidently but vainly thought, 
 the dehnition of the InfaUibility of the Pontiff by reviving the 
 monotonous controversy about Pope Honorius. Later, we 
 were told of I know not what combination of exalted person- 
 ages in France for the same end. It is certain that these 
 symptoms are not sporadic and disconnected, but in mutual 
 understanding 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 widi authority by half a 
 note, he is at once extolled for unequalled learning and irre- 
 fragable 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 ap- 
 preciable ; on the Theological Schools of the Church it will 
 have little influence; upon the CEcumenical Council it can 
 have none. 
 
 'I can hardly persuade myself to believe that the Univer- 
 sity 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 de- 
 fined the relations between the Church, known to be infallible, 
 and tlie Civil Authority. Twelve Synods or Councils, two of 
 
28 Ale anil ig and BJ/cct of 
 
 them (Ecumenical, have long ago laid down these relations of 
 the Spiritual and Civil Povv^ers.^ 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 France 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 speculations of theologi- 
 cal 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 go- 
 vernments, would have no effect but to rouse a just indigna- 
 tion in the Episcopate of the Church throughout the world. 
 They hold their jurisdiction fi'om a higher fountain, and they 
 recognise no superior in their office of Judges of Doctrine, 
 save only the Vicar of Jesus Christ. This preliminary med- 
 dling has already awakened a sense of profound responsibihty 
 and an inflexible resolution to allow no pressure or influence, 
 or menace or intrigue, to cast so much as a shadow across 
 their fidelity to the Divine Head of the Church and to Plis Vicar 
 upon earth. 
 
 ' Moreover, we live in days when the *' Regium Placitum " 
 and ^'Exequaturs" and <^ Arrets" of Parliament 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. Tlie 
 very liberty of which men are proud will publish it. Ten 
 thousand presses in all lands will promulgate every act of the 
 Church and of the Pontiff, in the face of all Civil Powers. 
 
 ^ Bellarm. Optiscida adv. Ba'clmcm, p. 845, ed. Col. 1617, 
 
tlie Vatican Decrees, 29 
 
 Once published, tliese acts enter the domain of faith and con- 
 science, and no human legishition, 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 {\'^q from civil constraint. They will 
 not stultify their own decla.rations by attempting to restrain the 
 acts of the Vatican Council Tiie 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 mo- 
 ment/ 
 
 (2) I will now state positively what the Council has 
 defined on the subject of the Roman Pontiff. The 
 history then of the Definition of the Infallibility is as 
 follows : — 
 
 I. Two Schemata, as they w^ere 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. 
 
 In the scliema on the nature of the Church, its In- 
 fallibility v/as 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 
 
30 Mecin'uig and Effect of 
 
 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 endownnents of the 
 Body. And this, which Vv^as brought about by the 
 pressure of special events, is not v/ithout significance. 
 The schools of the Church have followed the logical 
 order; but the Church in Council, when for the first 
 time it began to trea.t of its owm 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 v/ith 
 the primacy over the Apostles. Upon this rock all 
 were built, and from him the wdiole unity and author- 
 ity 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 v/ith him by all the Apostles. From him 
 and through him thereifore all began. For which cause 
 a clear and precise conception of his Primacy and privi- 
 lege 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 proportion- 
 ately obscure. The doctrine of the Church does not 
 
the Vaticaji Decrees. 3 1 
 
 determine the doctrine of the Primacy, but the doc- 
 trine of the Primacy does precisely determine the doc- 
 trine of the Church. In beginning, therefore, with the 
 Plead, 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 pre- 
 cision with which the Council of the Vatican has, in 
 one brief Constitution, excluded the well-known 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 while as yet the 
 Council was in the fulness of its numbers. It w^as ob- " 
 vious that the length of time consumed in the discus- 
 sion, reformation, and voting of the Schemata was such 
 that, unless the Constitution De Romano Pontijice were 
 brought on immediately after Easter, it could not be 
 finished before the setting in of summer should compel 
 the bishops to disperse. Once dispersed, it Avas 
 obvious they could never again reassemble 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 faithful, would have been 
 compelled to go back to their distant sees and mis- 
 sions, never to return. It was obviously of the first 
 moment that such a question should be discussed and 
 decided, not, as we should Iiave been told, in holes and 
 corners, or by a handful of bisliops, or by a faction, or 
 ijy a clique, but by the largest possible assembl}' of the 
 
o 
 
 2 Meaning and Effect of 
 
 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 de- 
 fining, not the truth, of which was contested by a nu- 
 merous 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 in fact the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff was 
 defined on the eighteenth of July, and war Vvas offici- 
 ally declared on the follov/ing day. 
 
 With these and many other contingencies fully be- 
 fore them, those who believed that the definition was, 
 not only opportune, but necessary for the unity of tdie 
 Church and of the Faith, urged its immediate discus- 
 sion. Events justified their foresight. The debate was 
 prolonged into the heats of July, whenj by mutual con- 
 sent, the opposing sides withdrew from a further pro- 
 longing 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 Infallibility — it could not so have end- 
 ed. 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 
 
 ^ Pet}i Pfivikgium, part iii. pp. 51-54. 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 2>Z 
 
 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 
 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 chap- 
 ters. 
 
 The first treats of the Institution of the Apostolic 
 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 v/ord of 
 anything but the Pastoral or Spiritual power. 
 
 The second declares the Primacy to be perpetual. 
 It affirms tw6 things : the one that Peter has a perpetu- 
 al line of successors, and that the Roman Pontiff is the 
 successor of Peter in that Primacy. 
 
 The third affirms the jurisdiction of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff to be full and supreme in all things of faith and 
 morals, and also in discipline and government of the 
 Church; and that this jurisdiction is ordinary and ini- 
 inediate over all Churches and persons. 
 
 The fourth chapter treats of the InfalliljiHty of the 
 Magistcriiim, or the teaching authority of the Roman 
 Pontiff. This cliaptcr affirms that a Divine assistance 
 was given to Peter, and in Peter to his successors for 
 
34 • MeoAiing and Effect of 
 
 the discharge of their supreme office. It affirms also 
 that this is a tradition received from the beginning of 
 the Christian Faith. The}% therefore, who tell us that 
 the Vatican Council has brought in a new doctrine show 
 that they do not know what the 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 wdien he speaks 
 under these five conditions: (i) as Supreme 
 Teacher (2) to the whole Church. (3) Defin- 
 ing 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 Revelation 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 precise 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 bv those v.-ho love contention 
 
the VaiiciDi Deo^ees. i ^ 
 
 against the Catholic Churckniore than they love either 
 faith or nn orals. 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 touclied the 
 extent or the lim.its. 
 
 Such, then, is the whole of the first Constitution 
 De Ecclesia Ciiristi. 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 an^^ human power 
 hinder their exercise. But these are truths as old 
 as the day wdien 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 tht^ Vatican Council 
 has ;iot changed by a jot or a tittle the civil allegiance 
 of Catholics. It is as free and perfect now as it was 
 before. 
 
 As I have affirmed that the doctrine of the Infalli- 
 bility of the Head of the Church w\as a doctrine of 
 Divine Faith before the Council, and tliat the denial 
 of it was confined to a small school of writers, I might 
 be expected here to offer tb.e historical proof of this 
 assertion. 
 
 But. \ have already done so in the year iS6g, before 
 the Council assembled. I would therefore refer to the 
 second part of * Petri Privilegium • ^ for, as I believe, a 
 sufficient proof. I will, liowever, in few words give 
 the outline of what was then said. 
 
 It is acknowledged by the adversaries of the doc- 
 trine that from the Council of Constance in 1414 to 
 ' Acts iv. 19. - Fart ii. ]^p. 63-107. 
 
36 Meaning and Effect of 
 
 this day the doctrine has been the predominant beHef 
 of the Church. I gave evidence of its existence,Jrom 
 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 XIV. 
 
 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, Avhich arose in France, without warrant 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, af- 
 firmed only by a small number out of the numerous 
 Episcopate of France, indignantly rejected by many of 
 them ; condemned in succession by three Pontiffs ; de- 
 clared 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 arain in the Bull Atictorcm Fidei, 
 
 From this evidence it is certain : — ■ 
 
 I. That Gallicanism has no warrant in the doc- 
 trinal practice or tradition of the Church, 
 either in France or at large, in the thousand 
 years preceding the Council of Constance. 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 37 
 
 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 Sorbonne, 
 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 Infallibility 
 of its Head. The Vatican Council extinguished this 
 modern error. 
 
 II. Having thus far offered proof of the first pro- 
 position 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 natur^il moral law. 
 
 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 
 
 * Petri Privilc^-lum, part ii. p. 56. * P- 44- 
 
3S Meaning and Ejj'cct of 
 
 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 
 God ; th^ subject is under the authority of the Civil 
 State, and the Divine authority of natural or revealed 
 religion. Unless we claim Infallibility for the Stato, 
 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 unlimited mon- 
 sters. Surely these are truisms. Our Lord Himself 
 taught this division when He said, ^ Render therefore to 
 Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the 
 things that are God's.' But this all men admit when 
 they think. Unfortunately, Vvdien they attack the 
 Catholic Church or the Vatican Council they seldom 
 think much. 
 
 Put the objection in this form : ' We non-Catholics 
 acknowledge two authorities as you Catholics do. 
 Oar allegiance to the civil law is revised and checked 
 by our consciences, guided by the light of nature and 
 by the light of revelation. We refuse to receive reli- 
 gious 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 
 civil authority may most justly both require and en- 
 foixe. We therefore leave every man free to refuse 
 obedience to civil laws if his conscience so demands of 
 liim. But you Catholics put your conscience into the 
 hands of the Pope. You are bound to follow his in- 
 terpretation of the civil law; and he tells you when 
 
the Vat lea ?z Deerees. 39 
 
 your conscience ought to refuse obedience whether you 
 see it or not; worse than this, the Pope may WTongly 
 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 tv/ofold. 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 v/ratli ' and not for * con- 
 science sake/ ^ And such, in fact, is the condition of 
 millions of men. I could wish that the mental state of the 
 masses were better known. I wish it were possible to 
 ascertain, by letting down a thermometer into the deep 
 sea of our population, what notions remain of loyalty 
 or allegiance. No doubt, in an insular population like 
 ours, the traditional custom of inert conformity 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 >'ou 
 once admit tliat the ultimate decision as to civil obe- 
 dience is in the individual, each political conscience 
 is a lawgiver and a law to itself. You cannot fly prin- 
 ciples with a string as boys fly kites. Once enunciated 
 
 ' Rom. y.iii. 5. 
 
40 Mea7iing and Ji^lci of 
 
 they hav^e nothing to control them., /If every man has 
 the ultimate right of refusing obedience to the law upon 
 the dictates of his own conscience, then we are in a state 
 of unhmited. license, which is potentially a state of un- 
 limited revolution. And such, in truth, since 1789 has 
 been the state of the west of Europe. It is in a state 
 of chronic instabihtv and continuous chano-e. 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 secured 
 not only against external coercion, but against its own 
 aberrations. The obedience of Cathohc subjects to 
 their Civil Rulers is a positive precept of religion. The 
 rising against legitimate authority is forbidden as the 
 sin of rebellion. The Syllabus has condemned the pro- 
 positions : — 
 
 ' 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 CathoHcs 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 Civil 
 Law, but all unreasonable and contentious disobedi- 
 ence is condemned by its authority, It is a doctriric 
 of faith that leritim.ate sovereiijntv exists not cnl\' in 
 
the Vatican Dec7'ees. 41 
 
 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, threfore, that Catholics * are 
 bound to Civil Allegiance by every bond, natural ^ 
 and supernatural, as absolutely as their non-Catholic 1 
 fellow-countrymen ; and, I must add, more explicitly. \ 
 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 life, the duty of Catholics is 
 already defined by a wdiole code which enforces obedi- 
 ence for conscience sake. In the rare case of doubt 
 which may arise in times of religious persecution, poli- 
 tical revolution, civil w^ars, or wars of succession, 
 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 Christendon, 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 Avhich 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 jucHcIal 
 tribunal and the source of its civil order and stabiHt}'. 
 And is this to place * liis mental and moral freedom at 
 
 * Rom. xiil. 1-4. ' fit. Prter il. ij-15. 
 
42 MeaniiLg ajid Effect of 
 
 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 miay defend himself, and that every people 
 has the right of self-defence. On this ail defensive 
 wars are justifiable. But if the Sovereign levy war 
 upon his people, have they the right of self-defence ? 
 Beyond all doubt. But at what point may they take 
 up arms? and what amount of oppression justifies re- 
 course to resistance ? For the non-Catholics there can 
 only be these answers. ' He must go by the light of 
 his ov/n conscience, or he must be guided by the judg- 
 ment of the greater number, or by the Vv^iser heads of 
 his nation.' But the greater number may not be the 
 wiser ; and to judge Vv'ho are the wiser throws the judg- 
 ment once more upon himself. The Catholic subject 
 Vv^ould 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 lav/ confirmed the 
 justice of his judgment. But from whom is this judg- 
 ment to be sought ? He v/ould ask it of all 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 our- 
 selves. 
 
 Let us take an example. The Italian people h.ave 
 been for tv/enty years spectators of a revolution which 
 has overthrown the Sovereigns of Naples and Tuscany. 
 I will ask two questions. First, Avould any Italian 
 place himself at the mercy of another, if he should ask 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 43 
 
 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 
 lawful. Surely, if Italians are free to form their con- 
 science 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 tw^o 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 Christianity which has in- 
 troduced it, and not the Church. It Avas our Lord Him- 
 self who, by instituting His Church, separated forever 
 the two powers, Civil and Spiritual, thereby redeeming 
 the conscience and the religion of men from the domin- 
 ion of princes, and conferring upon the Civil Power the 
 consecration by wdiich 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 princes.^ In all conflicts between the 
 Civil and Spiritual, the consciences of Christians v/ill 
 be decided by the Christian law. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, this part of the subject by re- 
 asserting : — 
 
 I. That the relations of the Church to tlie State 
 
 * Expos fiilati oily p. 52. 
 
 ^ Temporal Poiucr of the Pcpc, iM). A\-^^\ second od. 1S62. 
 
44 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 ^ declara- 
 tory ' 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 
 Vv'ere known and declared by the Council of Trent 
 and all previous Councils. 
 
 I will therefore ansv/er ?slr. Gladstone's questions in 
 page 44 of his ^ Expostulation.' He tells us that * what 
 is not wanted is vague and general assertion of what- 
 ever 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 — • 
 ^ 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 pow- 
 ers 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, 
 * 2. That if, and Vvdien such claim is 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 
 
 ^ TJu Vatican Decrees^ p. 44. 
 
the Vatican Decrees. 45 
 
 faith, nor 111 the name of morals, nor in the name of 
 the government or discipHne of the Church, which he 
 was not able to make before the Vatican Council ex- 
 isted. 
 
 To Mr. Gladstone's first question, therefore, I an- 
 swer, 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 ask 
 — Does he mean that the 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 all 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. 
 
46 Relations of the 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 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 innmutably from the beginning, be- 
 cause they arise out of the Divine constitution of the 
 Church and out of the Civil Society of the natural 
 order. 
 
 L Inasmuch as the natural and civil society existed 
 before the foundation of the Christian Church, we will 
 begin wuth it ; and here my concessions, or rather my 
 assertions, will, I hope, satisfy all but Caesarists. 
 
 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 humxan family contains the first princi- 
 ples and laws of authority, obedience, and order. 
 These three conditions of society are of Divine origin ; 
 and they are the constructive laws of all civil or poli- 
 tical society. 
 
 2. To the Civil Society of mankind supreme autho- 
 rity 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, therefore, is given 
 by God immediately to human society; and mediately, 
 or mediante societate, to the person or persons to 
 
Spiritical and Civil Powers. 47 
 
 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 m^ay be — for God has given no 
 special form of Civil Government — 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-de- 
 fence 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 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 WM'itten on the con- 
 science and on the heart. The ethics wliich ^:^o^'^rn 
 
48 Relations of the 
 
 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 ow^es 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 tem- 
 poral 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 God ; and those that are, are ordained oi 
 God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi- 
 nance cf God ; and they tliat resist, purchase to themselves 
 damnation. . . . For he is God's minister to thee for good. 
 But if thou do that which is evil, 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 conscience sake.'^ 
 
 The State, then, is a perfect society, supreme within its 
 own sphere, and in order to its ow^n 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 draw^n this out 
 in greater fulness to show that the Church is in the 
 highest dec^ree conservative of all the natural au- 
 thority cf rulers, and of the natural allegiance of 
 
 ^ Romans xiii. i-"?. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers, 49 
 
 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 op- 
 position. 
 
 Now, as to the Divine institution of the Civil So- 
 ciety of the Avorld 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 sovereign 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 
 has received from God its form and constitution, and 
 its rulers receive their authority immediately,* v/ith 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 necessity, in essen- 
 
 ^ ' Eliam noccntiiim potcstas non est nisi a Deo.'— St. Augustine, 
 De Naitira Bonl contra AlanicJi, cap, xxxii. 
 
 ^ SuaiGz, Defcnsio Fidel, lib. iii. cap. ii. sect. 5, 15, 16. 
 
50 Relations of the 
 
 tial conformity and harmony with each other. 
 CoUision between them can only be if either 
 deviates from its respective laws. 
 The natural society of man aims directly 2X the tem- 
 poral 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 eter- 
 nal 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. 
 
 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 cedifica- 
 tionein nan in destructioneni^ inasmuch as it is 
 governed by the same Divine Lawgiver, and 
 it is directed to an end which includes and en- 
 sures the end of the natural society also. 
 
 To put this brief!}-. 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 ofthe Christian Church said: 
 ' To thee I \\n\\ give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
 And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 51 
 
 bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
 on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' ^ And again : 
 *A11 power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 
 Going therefore, teach all nations,* ..." teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you.' ' 
 
 If these two commissions do not confer upon the 
 Christian Church a supreme doctrinal authority, and 
 a supreme judicial office, in respect to the 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 pre- 
 ceptive, so long as Princes and their laws are in con- 
 formity with the Christian law ; and judicial, ratione 
 pcccati^ 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 doc- 
 trine of the heathen Caesarism. 
 
 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 ap- 
 ply It. 
 
 To say tliat 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 Icgcvi, but Lex facit Regein, we 
 mean that there is a will above the King ; an^ that will 
 
 ' St. Matthew xvi. ig. '^ Ibid, xxviii. i3, ig. 
 
52 Relations of the 
 
 is the Civil Society, who 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 
 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 principle that the 
 supernatural power of the Church 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 m.an, St, Thomas 
 says : 
 
 * Power and authority are estabhshed by human riglit ; the 
 distinction between the faithful and those who do not believe 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 hea- 
 then 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 out- 
 side the Divine jurisdiction of the Church. The Church 
 
 ^ St. Thomas, ida 2dcBy qucest, x. art. lo. 
 ^ I Cor. V. 12. 
 
Spirihial and Civil Powers. 53 
 
 has, therefore, in this respect, no commission to dis- 
 charge towards it except to convert it to Christianity. 
 
 But if it be the office of the Church to teach subjects 
 to obey even Heathen Rulers, as the Apostle did, how 
 much more, in the case of Christian Princes and tlieir 
 laws, is it the office of the Church to confirm, conse- 
 crate, and enforce the sanctions of religion and of con- 
 science, 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 enforce 
 the correction of that departure from justice. I do not 
 see how any man who believes in the Revelation 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 Caesarism and Ultramontanism,' in which I have 
 claimed for the Church a supremacy in spiritual things 
 over the State, and have made this statement : 
 
 ' Any power which is independent and can alone fix the 
 limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of 
 all otlier jurisdictions, is, ipso^tt^o^ supreme. But the Church 
 of Jesus Christ, within the spnere of revelation — of faith and 
 morals — is all this, or is nothing or worse than nothing, an im- 
 posture and an usurpation; that is, it is Christ or Antichrist.' ^ 
 
 It is hardly loyal to take the conclusion of a s)'llo- 
 gism without the premises. In the very page before 
 this quotation I had said : 
 
 * Cicsarisui and Ultramoitanisni^ p. 36. 
 
54 Relations of the 
 
 * In any question as to the com})etence of the two powers, 
 either there must be some judge to decide what does and wiuit 
 does not tall within their respective spheres, or they are de- 
 'hvered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But 
 who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the 
 Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what 
 the sphere of faith and morals contains, and how far it ex- 
 tends ? 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 tlie 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 endowments of the 
 Church. To do this it must know the whole deposit of ex- 
 plicit 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 w^ith 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 ow^n jurisdiction ; and it knows 
 therefore the limits and the competence of the Civil Power. 
 It is thereby in matters of reliodon and conscience supreme.' ^ 
 
 If the Church cannot fix the limits of its juris- 
 diction, then either nobody can or the State must. 
 But the State cannot unless it claim to be the deposi- 
 tory and expositor of the Christian Revelation. There- 
 fore it is the Church or nobody. This last supposi- 
 tion leads to chaos. Now if this be rejected, the 
 
 ^ CcEsaris7n and Ultramontanism ^ pp. 24, 35. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers, 55 
 
 Church alone can : and if the Church can fix the Hmits 
 of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the Hmits 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 inde- 
 pendent of all others, is supreme over them, in so far 
 as the eternal happiness of man is involved. 
 
 From this, again, two consequences follow : — 
 
 1. First, that in all things which are purely 
 temporal, and lie extra fifievi EcclcsicB, 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 Jamis^ Quiriniis — and I lament to detect the tones 
 of a voice, hitherto heard in behalf of the authority of 
 Christianity and of the Christian Church, — affirming 
 that the Church of Rome and its Pontiffs claim supreme 
 temporal ^ power, and thaj^lirect, over all Temporal 
 Princes and things ; to be wH ^t their discretion even 
 to the deposing of Kings, to the absolution of subjects 
 from allegiance, to the employment of force, imprison- 
 ment, torture, and death. 
 
 If such be the state of our highest minds, we cannot 
 regret that this discussion has been forced upon us. 
 
 '^Expostulation, \). 27. 
 
56 Relations of the 
 
 It has come not by our act. It has arisen in its thne 
 appointed. It will for awhile raise alarm and suspicion ; 
 it will kindle animosity and encourage 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 
 propositions : — 
 
 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 God, the Church has authority from God to 
 judge of that deviation, and to oblige to its cor- 
 rection. 
 
 3. The authority which the Church has from God 
 for this end is not temporal^ but spiritual. 
 
 4. This spiritual authority is not direct in its inci 
 dence on temporal things, but only indirect : 
 that is to say, it directly promotes its own jr//- 
 ritual^nd] it indirectly condemns and declares 
 not binding on the^Jkscieiice 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 Jin the w^orld depends on cer- 
 tain moral and niaterial conditions, by which 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 57 
 
 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 So- 
 ciety of men. But it is also true that these relations 
 have been declared by the Church in acts and decrees 
 which are of infallible authority. Such, for instance, is 
 the Bull of Boniface VIII., Unain Sanctaui, As this 
 has become the text and centre of the whole contro- 
 versy at this moment, we will fully treat of it. This 
 Bull, then, was beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra. 
 It was also confirmed by Leo X. in the Fifth Lateran 
 CEcumenical Council. Whatever definition, therefore, 
 is to be found in this Bull is to be received as of faith. 
 Let it be noted that the Unain Sanctam does not de- 
 pend upon the Vatican Council for its infallible autho- 
 rity. It was from the date of its publication an infalli- 
 ble act, obliging all Catholics to receive it with interior 
 assent. Doctrines identical with those of the Lhiam 
 Sanctam had been declared in two CEcumenical Coun- 
 cils — namely, in the Fourth Lateran in 121 5, and the 
 First of Lyons in 1245/ On this ground, therefore, I 
 have affirmed that the relations of the Spiritual and 
 Civil Powers were irrirantably fixed before the Vatican 
 Council met, and that they have been in no way chang- 
 ed by it. 
 
 V. We will now examine, (i) the complete text of 
 the Unani Sanctam ; (2) the interpretations of its assail- 
 
 * Bellarmin. Dc Potcs'. Pcpcz. in prxf, p 84.}, Cologne, 1617. 
 
58 Relations of the 
 
 ants and its defenders ; (3) the interpretation which is 
 of obligation on all Catholics. 
 
 I. The Bull was published by Boniface VIII., in 
 1302, during the contest with Philip le Bel of France. 
 
 Before the Bull was published, the Regalists 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 
 declared that the Pope made no such claim ; that he 
 claimed no temporal, but only a spiritual power.^ 
 Nevertheless this prejudice, once created, before the 
 publication of the Unam Saiictarn^ ensured its being 
 misinterpreted when it was issued. Boniface, by the 
 Bull Ausctilta Fili^ had promptly exposed this misin- 
 terpretation. But the prejudice was already estab- 
 lished.' 
 
 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 remission of sins. As 
 the Bridegroom declares in the Canticles, '^ One is my dove, 
 my perfect one, she is the only one of her mother, thethosen 
 of her that bore her; " ^ who represents the one mystical Body, 
 the Head of which is Christ ; and the Head of Christ is God. 
 
 ^ Doninger's Church History^ vol. iv. p. 90. 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 91. ^ Cant. vi. 8. 
 
spiritual and Civil Pozvers. 59 
 
 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, O 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 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 lots. Therefore of that 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 whicl> 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 ill heed to the word of the Lord, saying, 
 
 ^ Ephesians iv. 5. ^ Genesis vi. 16. ^ Psalm xxi. 21. 
 
 * St. John xix. 23, 24. ^ St. John xxi. 17. " St. John x. 16, 
 
 '^ St. Luke xxii. 38. 
 
6o Relations of the 
 
 " 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 spiri- 
 tual) is to be wielded by the Church : 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 
 temporal authority ought 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 high- 
 est 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 im- 
 mediate subordination ; but the lowest things are set in order 
 by things intermediate, and things inferior hy things superior. 
 We ought, therefore, as clearly to confess that the spiritual 
 power, both \i\ dignity and excellence, exceeds any earthly 
 power, in proportion as spiritual things are better than things 
 ^temparal. This we see clearly from the giving, and blessing, 
 aiid sanctifying x^f tithes, from the reception of the power itself, 
 ,and from the government of the same things. For, as the 
 Jtriith .beai;s .witness, the spiritual power has to instruct, and 
 judge the earthly power, if it be not good; and thus the pro- 
 phecy of Jeremias is verified of the Church and the ecclesias- 
 ^cal power : ^' Lo, I liave set thee this day over the nations and 
 <Qye-r kingdoms/\etC;^ If^ therefore^ the earthly poVer deviates 
 ^from its je^d), \t wilj be judged by the spiritual ; but if a lesser 
 spiritual ppwey transgresses, it will be judged by its superior; 
 
 ^ St. Matthew xxvi. -2. " Romans xiii. i. " Tcreiniali i 10. 
 
Spiriiiial and Civil Poiuers. 6i 
 
 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 
 tnrough man, is not human, but rather Divine — given by the 
 Divine voice to Peter, and confirmed to him and his successors 
 in Him whom Peter confessed, the Rock, for the Lord said to 
 Peter : *• Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be 
 bound also in lieaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
 eardi,. 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 Manich.a^us 
 did, he feign to himself two principles, which we condemn as 
 false and heretical ; for, as Moses witnesses, " God created 
 heaven and eardi 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 Roman Pontiff.' 
 
 2. We will next take the interpretations. They 
 may be put into three classes : — 
 
 (i) 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 Gcrson 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 h.as 
 
 ^ I Corinthians ii. 15. ^ St. Mattlicw xvi. ig. 
 
 ^ Romans xiii. 2. * Genesis i. 1. 
 
62 Relations of the 
 
 in these thing an authority {dominiuni) to rule, to 
 direct, to regulate, and to ordain/ Such was the 
 doctrine of Almain, AUiacus, John of Paris, and of the 
 old Sorbonne. It was also the doctrine of the theolo- 
 gians 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 Uiiani Sanctam w^as published, Egidius 
 Romanus, the Archbishop of Bourges, wrote against it, 
 being deceived into a belief that Boniface claimed a di- 
 rect 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 
 1302 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 
 Unam Sanctam in the reign of Louis XIV. 
 
 Bianchi says that there is not to be found a waiter in 
 
 * Joann. Gerson, De Potest. Eccles. Consid. xii. Bianchi Delia 
 Potesta et delta Politia delta Chiesa, torn. i. lib. i. cap. xi. 
 ^ Bianchi, lib. i. cap. x. 
 ^ DSllinger's History of the Church, vol. iv. p. 91.^ 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers, 62^ 
 
 France, before Calvin, who denied this indirect spiritu- 
 al power; that the denial was introduced by the Hu- 
 guenots about the year 1626; that the Sorbonne began 
 to adhere to it, and reduced it to a formula in 1662. 
 Bossuet endeavours to fasten on the Unain Sanctarn the 
 old Regalist interpretation, and affirms that it was with- 
 drawn 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 au- 
 thority 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 Gallican 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 time. 
 
 It is not a little wearisome to read the same old 
 stories over again; and to be told as * scientific his- 
 tory ' 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 
 in Janus, From Jdntis it goes to newspapers, maga- 
 zines, and pamphlets. Anybody can interpret a Pope\s 
 Bull. There is no need of a knowledge of contempo- 
 rary facts, or of the terminology of the Civil or CaniMi 
 
 ' Lib. i. cap. xiii. 
 
 ^ In the Appendix A wiH be found in fuU the Text of the three 
 Pontifical Acts, Novit, Unani Sa7jctam, Meruit. 
 
64 Relations of the 
 
 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 
 Unani Sanctani. 
 
 It cannot be better stated than in the words of Dr. 
 Dollinger.^ He writes thus : — 
 
 * Boniface opened ihe council, at which there were present 
 from France four archbisliops, thirty-five bishops, and six ab- 
 bots, in November 1302. One consequence of this council 
 appears to have been the celebrated decretal Uiiam Sanciam^ 
 which was made public on the i8th of November, and which 
 contains an exposition of the relations 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 consecration and its direction to its highest' object, and 
 must therefore, should it ever depart from its destined path, be 
 corrected by ihe spiritual power. It is a truth of faiih 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 kingdcms, and the treatment of their sub- 
 jects, and should thus lose sight of the clject to which the 
 power of a Christian Prince should be directed, and should give 
 public scandal to the people, the Poj^e can admonish them, 
 
 ^ Hist. iv. p. 91. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 65 
 
 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 fol- 
 low 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 princi- 
 ples, which w^ould 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 pas- 
 sages of them from the writings of two French theologians, St. 
 Bernard and Hugo of St. Victor.' 
 
 The interpretation given here by Dr. Dollinger 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. 
 
 Now, upon the doctrines declared by the Bull it is 
 to be observed : — 
 
 1. Tlfat it does not say that the two swords were 
 given by our Lord to the Church ; but that the 
 two swords are in potcstcite Ecelesicv, ^ in the 
 power of the Church.' 
 
 2. That it at once goes on to distinguish, * Both 
 
 (swords) are t/i tJie poiver 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 
 
66 Relations of the 
 
 Priest ; that, by the hand of kings and sol- 
 diers, but at the bidding and sufferance of the 
 Priest/ 
 
 3. That though both swords are in the Church, 
 
 thev are held in different hands, and to be 
 used by the subordination of the one to the 
 other. Oportet auteni gladiiini esse sub gladio : 
 the one sword must be subordinate to the 
 other, the lower to the higher. 
 
 4. That Boniface YIIL, in this very Bull Unam 
 
 Sanctaiii, 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 itself is judged of God alone. 
 Now, on the principles already laid down, there 
 ought to be no difficulty in rightly and clearly under- 
 standing this doctrine. 
 
 I. For first the ^^laterial 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 na- 
 ture, as St. Paul, speaking of the heathen em- 
 pire, says : * He beareth not tlie 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 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 67 
 
 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 
 autent gladium esse sttb 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 
 Church, because he that bears it is in the Church. It 
 is the office of the Church to consecrate it, and (insti- 
 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 tJie 
 poiver of the Clnirch' it means that the Church 
 in a Christian world includes the natural order 
 in its unity. The conception of the Church in- 
 cluded 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 Roman Church and the Holy Roman 
 Empire are oiie and the same thing in two aspects ; and Ca- 
 tholicism, the principle of the universal Christian Society, is 
 also Romanism : that is, rests upon Rome as the origin and 
 type of universality, manifesting itself in a mystic dualibm 
 
 * Bianchi, lib. i. cap. iv. . 
 
68 Relations of the 
 
 which corresponds to the two natures of its Founder. As Di- 
 vine and eternal, its head is the Pope, to whom all souls have 
 been entrusted ; as human and temporal, the Emperor, com- 
 missioned 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 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 ISIediaeval Empire is that of an uni- 
 versal Christian Monarchv. The Roman Empire and the 
 Catholic Church are two aspects of one Society.' ... * At 
 the head of this Societ3^,.in its temporal character as an Em- 
 pire, stands the temporal chief of Christendom, the Roman 
 Caesar; at its head, in its spiritual character as a Church, 
 stands the spiritual chief of Christendom, the Roman Pontiff, 
 Caesar 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 cre- 
 
 ^ The Holy Roman Empire, p. loS. (Macmillan, 1871.) 
 
 ^ Freeman's Historical Essays, pp. 136-137. (Macmillan, 1872.) 
 
Spirittcal and Civil Powers. 69 
 
 ation, 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. 
 
 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 Ecclesice^ in the pozver 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 distinguished 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 association and obliga- 
 tion inhering in the same multitude of men, whereby the 
 Civil Society under the government of the Civil Magistrate 
 exerts its powers to secure the temporal happiness of men, and, 
 under the government of the Church, to secure eternal life; 
 and in such wise that eternal 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 wlio 
 so pursue the happiness of this life as thereby to show that it 
 ought to be subordinate to the attainment of eternal happiness, 
 
 * Tarquini, Juris Eccl. Publicl Institittioncs, p. 56. (Rome, 1S73.) 
 
70 Relations of the 
 
 which they believe can be attained alone under the direction of 
 the Catholic Church.* 
 
 We have here the full and genuine doctrine of the 
 Unain Sanctavi — the one body, the two swords, 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. Dollinger*s interpretation, then, is strictly cor- 
 rect — namely, ^ It was therefore,* he says, * the indirect 
 power of the Church over the temporal power of Kings 
 which the Pope defended in these Bulls ;* 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 tempo- 
 ral end (of Government), the Church has no 
 power in Civil society. 
 
 The proof of this proposition is that all things 
 merely temporal are {prceter finem Ecclesid) 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 explana- 
 
 4 
 
 * Tarquini, yuris Eccl, Publici InstiiutiojteSy p. 57. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 71 
 
 tion of the indirect spiritual power of the Church. I 
 give it in Cardinal Tarquini's words — 
 
 < Directly the care of temporal happiness alone belongs to 
 the State, but indirectly the office also of protecting morals and 
 religion; so, however, that this be done dependently 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 — 
 
 ' I. That the Civil Society, even 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, w^hich seems to 
 
 affirm^ an absolute independence of the Civil State, 
 
 is to be brought within this limit.' 
 
 VIIL 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 
 dirtxt 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 
 W 
 
 * Torquini, Juris Eccl. Publicl Instiiutloius, p. 55 and nofc. 
 
72 Relations of the 
 
 temporal "^ow^x^ except in those States of which he is 
 Temporal Prince ; but that he has a spiritual power in- 
 directly over temporal things, in so far as they affect 
 the salvation of men or involve sin/ 
 
 One chief cause of the confusion of Regalists 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 Temporal was used in two senses. It 
 w^as 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 sig- 
 nify the spirittial 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 spi- 
 ritual 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 Spi- 
 ritual power of the Pope, applied indirectly to tem- 
 poral things, was {improprie^ improperly called Tem- 
 poral, and this itsits loqnendi gave rise to much misin- 
 terpretation. 
 
 What I have here stated was the judgment of Bel- 
 larmine, who, in his answer to Barclay^ writes as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 * Barclay says that there are two opinions among Catholics 
 (on the power of the Pontift). The one, which most Canon-- 
 ists follow, affirms that in the Supreme Pontiff, as Vicar of 
 
 ^ Suarez. De Legibus, lib. iii. c. vi. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 73 
 
 Christ, both powers, Spiritual and Temporal, exist : the other, 
 which is the common opinion of Theologians, affirms 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 that the power of the Pope in tem- 
 poral things was a free and open opinion among Catho- 
 lics : Bellarmine, in replying, says : — 
 
 * That this power is in the Pope is not opinion but certitude 
 among Catholics, though there be many discussions as to 
 what and of what quality the power is : that is to say, whether 
 it \^Q properly and /;/ 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 
 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 
 
 ^ Bellarmine, De Pctcsiatc. Suravii rcuiifLcls, cnp. i. p. 848 A, 
 Cologne, 161 7. 
 
 '^ Jhiif, cap. iii. p. 852 h. ' Ibid. cap. iii. p. 85S a. 
 
74 Relations of the 
 
 over temporal things : which the Theologians also 
 asserted. But this use of the word temporal ^^^x^t^ 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 ftiore 
 readily believe the good faith of those who so miscon- 
 ceive 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 territory 
 of the YonWii {Terr itorium Pontificis), But they do so 
 in answering the objection, that where the Pontiff 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 jurisdic- 
 tion over the whole world. But this does not say that 
 his jurisdiction is temporal. 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 examination, 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 Spiritual Power and 
 jurisdiction, is superior to Kings and temporal Princes, so as to 
 
 ^ Tarquini, p. 46. 
 
 d 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 75 
 
 direct them in the use of their temporal Povvef ia oidcr to 
 Spiritual ^\\^^,^' ' 
 
 He then goes on : — 
 
 * For though they sometimes speak indistinctly, and without 
 sufficient clearness, or even {i^nproprie) incorrectly — because 
 the power of the Pope is not temporal but spiritual, which con- 
 tains 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 dovvn their distinc- 
 tions 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 springs from direction to 
 a higher end, which belongs to a higher and more excellent 
 power. The proper Civil Power in itself is direcdy ordained 
 for the fitting state and temporal happiness of the human com- 
 monwealth 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 \\;ithin its own sphere.' ... * The chief ruler is, 
 then, subordinate to no superior in order to the same end of 
 
 ^ Suarcz, Defcnsio Fidci CatJicliccr^ torn. xxiv. lib. iii. c. \xii. 2nd 
 ed. Paris, 1869. 
 
76 Relations of the 
 
 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 (/. 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 [perse) of its own nature, nor for its 
 own sake, but indirectly, and for another end.' ^ 
 
 It will be seen here : — 
 
 1. That the superior po^ver cannot be temporal, 
 or its jurisdiction would be direct. 
 
 2. That, if temporal, it would not be of a higher y 
 but of the same order, 
 
 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 any temporal thing was also tem- 
 poral in itself. He then states and proves that this in- 
 direct power is Spiritual only. After speaking of the 
 power of the Keys, he says : — 
 
 ' In no other place did Christ imply that He gave to Peter 
 ^ Suarez, Defensio Fidel, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 2, 
 
Spirii2uil ajid Civil Powe^^s. 77 
 
 or to the Church temporal dominion, or n, 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 ad- 
 versaries, who desire to fasten on the Uiiam Sanctccjn 
 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. Victor, 
 St. Bonaventura, Durandus, and others, are fully dis- 
 cussed and proved by Bellarmine to affirm no more 
 than Spiritual power ; and that indirectly over tempo- 
 ral matters, when they involve the Spiritual end of the 
 Church.^ 
 
 IX. 1 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 in 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 un- 
 
 ^ Suarcz, Dcfensio Fidci, ^c. lib. iii. cap. v. sect. 14. 
 " This may be seen in his Controversia dc Summo Po):tifiCL\ cap. v.; 
 and in Bianclii's work, Delia Fofvsta, torn. i. p. 91, lib. i. ch. x. xi. 
 ^ Expostulatiou^ p. 26. 
 
78 Relatione, of the 
 
 justifiable in this ; and that the attempt to raise pre- 
 judice, suspicion, and hostiUty against the Catholic 
 Church at this day and in England by these topics, is 
 an act essentially unjust; from which a real science of 
 history ought to have preserved Mr. Gladstone. I must 
 repeat here again that between the Vatican Council 
 and these subjects there is no more relation than be- 
 tween jurisprudence and the equinox. Some fifteen 
 Councils of the Church, of which two are General, 
 have indeed recognised and acted upon the su- 
 premacy of the Spiritual authority of the Church 
 over temporal things ; but the Infallibility of 
 the Roman Pontiff is one thing, his 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 v/ill 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 show 
 that the doctrines of deposition and persecution, of keeping 
 no faith with heretics, and of universal dominion, were obso- 
 lete beyond revival.' ^ 
 
 This passage implicitly afi'irms what I hope expli- 
 citly to prove. How can laws become obsolete^ but by 
 the cessation of the moral conditions which require or 
 
 * Expostulation, P- 26. 
 
■ SpiriHi^aL and Civil Powers. 79 
 
 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 exist- 
 ence, become 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 im- 
 possible for Mr. Gladstone not to knov/ the true mean- 
 ing 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. 
 
 The moral principles on which the exercise of 
 supreme powers and rights was justifiable in the age 
 of Boniface VIII. exist no longer in the nineteenth 
 century 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 
 
 * Times, Wednesday, December 30, 1874, in leading article on the 
 Pope. 
 
8o Relations of the 
 
 own free will. Till then the highest laws of morality 
 render the exercises of such Pontifical acts in England 
 impossible. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has called on Pius IX. to repudiate 
 such powers.^ But Pius IX. cannot repudiate powers 
 which his predecessors justly exercised, without im- 
 plying that their actions were unjust. He 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 jus- 
 tice. The infallible witness for justice, and equity, 
 and charity among men, cannot violate these laws 
 wdiich 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 con- 
 demned ' " — clearly invests the Church with the author- 
 ity to baptise every creature. But the exercise of this 
 right w^as suspended upon a moral condition. It con- 
 veyed 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 wdio delivers it. The absolute and uni- 
 versal authority therefore of the Church to baptise de- 
 pends upon the free and voluntary act of those who 
 believe, and, through their own spontaneous submis- 
 sion, are willing to be baptised. 
 
 ^ ExposUdatic7i, p. 26. "^ * St. Mark xvi. 15, 16. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers^ 8 1 
 
 The Church so regards the moral conditions on 
 which its acts depend, that as a rule it v/ill not even 
 suffer an infant to be baptised unless at least one of the 
 parents consents. 
 
 In like manner the power of absolution, which has 
 no limit of time or of subject, can be exercised only 
 upon those who are willing. Confession and 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 judgment and 
 correction. Those who amuse themselves by asking 
 why St. Peter did not depose Nero, will do well to find 
 out whether people are laughing with them or at them. 
 Such questions are useful. They compendiously show 
 that the questioner does not understand the first prin- 
 ciples of his subject. If he will find out why St. Pe- 
 ter neither baptised nor absolved Nero, he will have 
 found out why he did not depose him. Until a Chris- 
 tian world existed there was no apta inaici'ia for the 
 supreme judicial pov/er of the Church in temporal 
 things. Therefore St. Paul laid down as a rule of law 
 tliat 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 subjcctctl themselves, one b}' one, to its 
 
82 Relations of the 
 
 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 subject to its guid- 
 ance. 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 exer- 
 cise are verified. When the senate and people of the 
 Roman Empire were only half Christian, the Church 
 still refrained from acts which w^ould have affected the 
 whole body of the State. When the whole had become 
 Christian, the whole became subject to the Divine Law, 
 of which the Roman Pontiff was the supreme expositor 
 and executive. 
 
 It would be endless to state examples in detail. I 
 v/ill take, therefore, only one in which the indirect spi- 
 ritual power of the Church over the temporal State is 
 abundantly shown. Take, for instance, the whole sub- 
 ject of Christian Matrimony: the introduction of the 
 Christian law of the unity and indissolubility and sacra- 
 mental character of marriage ; the tables of consanguin- 
 ity 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 com- 
 plete way what is the power claimed by the Church 
 over the temporal laws of Princes. 
 
 The Council of Trent reserves matrimonial causes to 
 the Ecclesiastical Tribunals ; and in the Syllabus the 
 proposition is condemned that they belong to the Civil 
 jurisdiction,^ 
 
 ^ Sess. xxiv. De Ref. can xii. 
 
Spirihtal and Civil Poivers, 83 
 
 In like manner, in prohibiting duels, the Council 
 declares temporal penalties against not only the princi- 
 pals, 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 recognized 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 two 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 ip- 
 so 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 
 in every case of deposition, as of Philip le Bel, Plenry 
 IV. of Germany, Frederic IL, and the like, the sentence 
 of the Electors, Princes, States, and people, and the 
 public opinion and voice of nations, had ah'eady pro- 
 nounced sentence of rejection upon those tyrants be- 
 fore the Pontiffs pronounced the sentence of excommu- 
 nication and deposition. It was only by the faith and 
 free will of nations that they became socially subject to 
 
 * Sess. XXV. cap. xix. 
 
$4 Relations of the 
 
 this jurisprirdence; 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 ac- 
 ceptance, and the material conditions of execution, 
 were alike present, rendering these supreme Pontifical 
 acts legitimate, right, lawful, wise, and salutary. 
 
 XI. 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 * Ex- 
 postulation ;' for if it be .not, why was it implied ? I 
 altogether deny the .argument, or inference, or call it 
 what you will. I affirm that the deposition of Henry 
 IV. and Frederic II. of Germany were legitimate, right, 
 and lawful ; and I affirm that a deposition of Queen 
 Victoria would not be legitimate, nor right, nor lawful, 
 because the moral conditions which were present to jus- 
 tify 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 
 even 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 Ploliness Pius 
 VI., addressed to the Roman Catholic Archbishops of 
 Ireland, dated Rome, June 23, 1791, we read as fol- 
 lows :— 
 
Spirihial a7id Civil Powers. C5 
 
 ^ In this controversy a most accurate discrimination shoul'.I 
 be made between the genuine rights of the Apostohcal 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 
 fliith is not to be kept with the heterodox — that an oath to 
 kings separated from Cathohc communion can be violated — 
 that it is lawful for the Bishops of Rome to invade their tem- 
 poral rights and dominions. We, too, consider an attempt or 
 design against the Hfe of kings and princes, even under the 
 pretext 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. 51 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 
 that no one has more frankly and forcibly expressed 
 this than Pius IX., in the very text of which Mr. 
 Gladstone -has quoted a part. The Holy Father, on 
 July 20, 1871, thus addressed a Literary Society in 
 Rome : — 
 
 ^ In the variety of subjects v/hich will present themselves 
 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 right of deposing sove- 
 reigns, and of absolving people from the obligation of allegi- 
 ance. 
 
 * This right, without doubt, 1ms been exercised by the 
 Supreme Pontiffs from time to time in extreme cases, but it has 
 nothing to do with the Pontifical Infallibility ; neither docr> i: 
 
86 Relatlo7is of the 
 
 flow from the Infaliibility, but from the authoVity 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 so^ 
 verei'gns, was freely extended (by aid, as was just, of public 
 jurisprudence, and the common consent 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. w^ent on to say : — 
 
 * But altogether different are the conditions of the present 
 time from the conditions (of those ages) ; and malice alone can 
 confound things so diverse, that is to say, the infalHble judg- 
 ment in respect to truths of Divine Revelation 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 confu- 
 sion of ideas is stirred up at this time, and why hypothetical cases 
 are paraded of which no man thi?iks. It is because every pre- 
 text, even the most frivolous and furthest from the truth, is 
 eagerly caught at, provided it be of a kind to give us annoy- 
 ance, 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 De- 
 cree with a dispassionate mind has its true sense easily and 
 obviously before him.* ^ 
 
 ^ Discarsl di Pio Nona, July 20, 187 1, -p. 203, Rome, 1S72. 
 
 I 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 87 
 
 Now, the Holy Father in these words has abun- 
 dantly shown two things: first, that they who connect 
 InfalUbihty with the Deposing Power are talking of 
 what they do not understand ; and, secondly, that the 
 moral conditions which justified and demanded the 
 deposition of tyrannical Princes, when the mediseval 
 world was both Christian and Catholic, have abso- 
 lutely ceased to exist, now that the world has 
 ceased to be Catholic, and has ceased to be even Chris- 
 tian. It has v/ithdrawn itself socially as a whole, 
 and in the public life of nations, from the unity 
 and the jurisdiction of the Christian Church. 
 In this it differs altogether from the mediaeval 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 Chris- 
 tian Church de facto et de jjire. The modern world 
 is without 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 Elizabeth and Queen Vic- 
 toria, I will add that Queen Elizabeth was baptised a 
 Catholic ; that she was crov/ned 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 Enj.^land were still Catholic. 
 
88 Relations of the ' 
 
 What one of all these conditions is present in the case 
 which I refuse to put in parallel? The English Mo- 
 narchy has been withdrawn for three centuries from the 
 Catholic Church ; the English people are wholly sepa- 
 rate ; the Legislation of England has effaced every trace 
 of the jurisprudence which rendered the Pontifical acts 
 of St. Gregory VII. and Innocent IV. legitimate, just, 
 and right. The public laws of England explicitly re- 
 ject 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 inflam- 
 mator}^ rhetoric, when every calm dictate of prudence 
 and of justice ought to forbid its indulgence. ' The 
 historic spirit,'^ com.mended in the * Expostulation,' 
 would have led to such a treatm^ent 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 cen- 
 tury 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 controversies of the nineteenth.' ^ 
 
 XII. For the same reasons I deplore the haste, I 
 must say the passion, v/hich carried away so large a 
 
 * Appendix B. ^ Expostulation, p. 14. 
 
 ^ Freeman's Historical Essays, * St, Thomas of Canterbury^ and his 
 Biographers,' p. 80. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powers. 89 
 
 mind to affirm or to imply 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 
 mxen of a mind and calibre as far removed from Mr. 
 Gladstone as almost to constitute a different species, 
 have at times endeavoured to raise suspicion and ani- 
 mosity 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 the 
 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 Catho- 
 lics. This is the most recent example of what Catho- 
 lics 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 when the old tra- 
 ditions of the Catholic 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 Liberalism. If the modern spirit had 
 any share in producing the Constitution in Belgium, it 
 certainly had no share in producing the Constitution 
 of Maryland. Lord Baltimore, who had been Secre- 
 tary of State under James I., in 1633, emigrated to the 
 American Plantations, where, through Lord Strafford's 
 influence, he had obtained a grant of land. lie was 
 iiccompanicd by men of all minds, who agreed chiefly 
 in the one desire to leave bcliind them the miserable 
 religious conflicts which tlien tormented F.npjand. 
 They named their new country Marx'land, and there 
 
90 Relations of the 
 
 they settled. The oath of the Governor was in these 
 terms : ' I will not, by myself or any other, directly or 
 indirectly, molest any person professing to believe in 
 Jesus Christ, for or fn respect of religion/ Lord 
 Baltimore invited the Puritans of Massachusetts, who, 
 like 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 2ist of April, passed this 
 Statute : ' And whereas the forcing of the conscience 
 in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be 
 of dangerous consequence in the Commonwealth where 
 it has been practised, and for the more quiet and 
 peaceable government of the Province, and the better 
 to preserve mutual love and amity am.ong the inhabi- 
 tants, no person within the Province professing to be- 
 lieve 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 Virginia 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 profess 
 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 will that the world-wide unity of 
 faith and communion were slowly built up among the 
 nations. When once shattered, nothing but conviction 
 and persuasion can restore it. Lord Baltimore was sur- 
 
 * Bancroft's Hisfory of the United Siates, vol. i. pp. 233, 235, 255, etc. 
 
spiritual and Civil Powcj^s. '91 
 
 rounded by a multitude scattered by the great wreck 
 of the Tudor persecutions. He knew that God alone 
 could build 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 histor}^ The 
 Puritan Commonwealth in England brought on a Puri- 
 tan revolution in Maryland. They acknowledged Crom- 
 well, and disfranchised the whole Catholic population. 
 ^'Liberty of conscience ' w^as declared, but to the exclu- 
 sion 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 'Avith a red-hot 
 iron. Women were w^hipped, and men Avere hanged, for 
 religion. If Catholics were in power to-morrow in 
 England, not a penal law would be pr'oposed, 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 Sovereignty of 
 Pius IX., the status of the Greek Church separate from 
 Catholic Unity would have been tolerated and respect- 
 ed. 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 con- 
 firmed by the tradition of centuries ; they had acquired 
 Civil rights, which enter into the laws of political jus- 
 
92 Relatio7is of the 
 
 tice, 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 were to-morrow the * Im- 
 perial race ' in these Kingdoms, they would not 
 use political power to molest the divided and he- 
 reditary religious state of our people. We should 
 not shut one of their Churches, or Colleges, 
 or Schools. They would have the same liberties we 
 enjoy as a minority. I hope the Nonconformists of 
 England are prepared to say the same. As vre are in 
 days Avhen 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 beginning, because 
 
 ^ Our older writers, such 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 therefore was formal 
 and wilful. Their separation 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. Car- 
 dinal Tarquini, in treating the same matter, has dealt with it as it has 
 been treated here. — Juris Eccl. Fuhl, Ijistitutioncs, p. 78. 
 
 J 
 
Spirihtal and Civil Powers, 93 
 
 they arise out of the Divine constitution of the Church, and 
 out of the civil society of the natural order.' 
 
 And we have also seen how far fr.om the truth are the 
 confident assertions put forward lately, that the Church 
 ascribes to its head Supreme Temporal as well as Su- 
 preme Spiritual Power/ 
 
 Further, we have seen with what strange want of 
 reflection and of depth the Pontifical acts of the old 
 Catholic world are transferred per saltiun 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 rela- 
 tions 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 reason of the 
 Divine constitution of the Church, and have been de- 
 clared by Councils, not only before the Council of the 
 Vatican, but before the Council of Trent; and, there- 
 fore, that to charge upon the Vatican Council a change 
 in these relations is not only an assertion without proof, 
 but an assertion contrary to historical fact. 
 
 ^ Expostulation^ dfc, p. 27. 
 
94 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 AGGRESSIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone says :— 
 
 ' 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 poHtical discussion. 
 To quiet-minded Roman Catholics it must be a subject of infi- 
 nite annoyance that their rehgion 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 thqm altogether by 
 the conduct of the authorides of their own Church.' ^ 
 
 His pamphlet from beginning 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 * Exorbitances 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 myself that 
 ^Ir. Gladstone would contend that even in the Consti- 
 tutions of Clarendon ' St. Thomas of Canterbury was 
 
 * Vatican Decrees, p. 9. "^ Ibid, p. 1 1. ^ Ibid. p. 25. 
 
 * Mr. Gladstone says, upon what evidence I do not know, * The 
 Constitutions of Clarendon, cursed from the Papal- Throne, were the 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 95 
 
 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 Chris- 
 tian Church to have a Divine office, which, v/ithin 
 some limit at least, is independent of all human autho- 
 rity. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
 work of the English Bishops * St. Thomas himself saj-s that ' Ricliard 
 dc Luci and Jocelin de Balliol, the abettors of the Royal tyrann)^ were 
 the fabricators of those heretical pravities.'f Herbert of Bosham, who 
 was present at Clarendon, says that they were the work of * certain 
 nobles (/rc7<:<?r^j) or chief-men of the kingdom.* if The Bishops v/cro 
 indeed terrified into submitting to them, but the Constitutions were 
 in no sense their work. 
 
 * Vatican Decrees^ pp. 57, 58. t Ef>. St. Thomcr^ torn. iii. p. in, c !. Cilr^, 1545. 
 
 X I'ita St, T/ioffttr^ lom. vli. p. 115, c»J, Gilcj, 
 
96 Aggressions cf the Civil Power. 
 
 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 i860, 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 Italians 
 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 w^ith 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 w^here the 
 Pope is concerned logic seems to fail even hi reasonable 
 men. The other day Prince Von Bismarck told the 
 Catholics of the Reichstag that they v/ere accomplices 
 of Kulmann, and therefore, as he implied, his assassins. 
 Moreover, he affirmed that the war of France against 
 Prussia was forced on the French Emperor by the 
 Pope and the Jesuits. How providentially, then, 
 though altogether fortuitously, no doubt, had Prussia 
 been for three years massing its munitions of war and 
 putting France in the wTong by intrigues in Spain, and 
 fables from Ems. Nevertheless, all these things are 
 believed. Prince Von Bismarck has said them. But 
 surely 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 
 
Aggressions cf the Civil Power, 97 
 
 Professors at Munich. The Munich Government lent 
 itself as an agent to Dr. Bollinger, 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 well remember that at one time we 
 were told in Rome, that if the Council persevered v/ith 
 the Definition of tne Infallibility, the French, troops 
 would be Vvithdrav/n. That is to say, that the Gari- 
 baldians v/ould be let in to m^ake 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 
 tG humour in this solicitude for the liberty of the 
 CcHancil. 
 
 I will nov/ 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 
 deliberate change made by the Civil Power of Prussia. 
 ,the status of the Catholic Church in Germany being 
 still unchanged. 
 
 I will here ask leave to repeat what I stated two 
 years ago : 
 
 ^ In the year 1069 it vv-as already believed that the Bava- 
 rian 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 Gov- 
 ernments. 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 licrc made, 
 
98 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 that a deliberate conspiracy against the Council was planned 
 with great artifice and speciousiiess of matter and of lan- 
 guage. 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 follows : — 
 
 ' " 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 circumstance into con* 
 sideration, it appears to me indispensable for every govern- 
 ment 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 
 only wdth 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 Rome 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 Pontiff, 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 Governments who rule over Catho- 
 lic subjects. 
 
 ' " There is a circumstance which increases still more 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 99 
 
 the gravity of the situation. I learn that among the com- 
 missions delegated to prepare matter, which later on is to 
 be submitted to the 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 — 
 a periodical conducted by the Jesuits, and bearing an ofh- 
 cial character through the brief of the Holy Father — lias 
 just demanded that the Council shall transform into conci- 
 liar 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, such as'we find it among all civilised 
 nations, it follows that Governments are under the necessity 
 of asking themselves if it is not 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 Govern- 
 ments to combine, for the purpose of protesting, cither 
 through their agents in Rome, or in some other way, against 
 all decisions which the Council may promulgate without 
 tlie concurrence of tlie representatives of the secuhir 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 tliis sM])je(M, 1 have 
 thouglU it necessary to seek for a mutual understanding 
 
lOO Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 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 Government to which you are 
 accredited, and to ascertain the views and intentions of the 
 Court of '^ * * in respect to the course which it deems ad- 
 visable to follow. You will submit, for the approbation of 
 M. * * *j the question whether it would not be advisable 
 to fix beforehand 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 CEcumenical Council; or whether 
 conferences composed of representatives of the States con- 
 cerned 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 
 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 wdiich this communication may be received. 
 * " I have the honour, etc., 
 
 ^ " HOHENLOHE. 
 
 ' '' MimicJu 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 
 w^as 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 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. loi 
 
 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 Churcli ; 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 1S69, as I have already 
 said, a document coiitaining five questions was proposed by 
 the Bavarian Government to the Theological Faculty at 
 Munich. No one could for a moment doubt by what hand 
 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 Roman Pontiff, would 
 be 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 questions and 
 the replies were inspired by one mind, if not written by one 
 and the same hand. 
 
 ' We have already seen that Prince Hohenlohe, President 
 of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Bavaria, 
 addressed a letter to tlie French and other Catholic Gov- 
 ernments, calling on them to interfere and to prevent the 
 "fearful dangers" to which the Council would expose tlie 
 modern world. Next, the Spanish Minister, Oh:)zau:i, liopod 
 that tlie Council would not meet, or at least wouhl^not 
 approve, sanction, or ratify tlie Sylhibus, wliich is in con- 
 tradiction with modern civilisation." lie then threatened 
 
I02 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 the Church with the hostility of a league formed by the 
 Governments of France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Bava- 
 ria. An Italian infidel then took up the game, and pro- 
 posed 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 efficacious and 
 noble idea to assemble a council of ideas to oppose to the 
 council of dogmas. I accept it. On the one side is theo- 
 cratic 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, nevertheless I 
 shall be there. My soul w^ill be there. I cry, Courage ! 
 and I squeeze your hand." The reader will forgive my re- 
 peating 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. 
 
 * About the montli 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 w^as extensively believed to be inspired by 
 Prussia, the policy of which wvas 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 sanie inspiration, addressed a circular to 
 his ciplomatic agents, proposing to the Powers to prevent 
 the assembling of the Council, on the ground of their not 
 having been invited to it. It w^as supposed at that time 
 that this policy also was secretly supported by Berlin. A 
 joint despatch w\as sent by Prince Hohenlohe and the 
 Italian Government to the French Government, urging 
 the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome during 
 the Council, to insure its freedom of deliberation. 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 103 
 
 These preparations to oppose the Council were made 
 before it had assembled. It met on December 8, 1869. 
 In the following January, Dr. Dollinger received the 
 freedom of a German city, in reward for his attacks on 
 the Holy See. 
 
 ^ When the well-known postulatum of the Bishops, asking 
 that the definition of the Papal Infallibility should be pro- 
 posed to the Council, was made public, Dr. Dollinger openly 
 assailed it ; and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
 Count Daru, addressed a letter to the 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 opportu- 
 nity of knowing that these threats were not mere rumours. 
 
 ^ At the same moment, while 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 that 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. Dollinger the 
 initiative in this deplorable attempt to coerce the Holy See, 
 and to overbear the liberty of the Bishops assembled in 
 Council. Prince ITohcnlohe is assuredly no theok^gian. 
 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 cons])iracy of 
 
i04 Aggressions of ike Civil Power. ^ 
 
 certain European Governments, and the intrigues of the 
 Old Catholics against the Council, both before the assem- 
 bling and during its sessions, would not have been needed 
 if the Diary of the Cowicil 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 as- 
 tounding confessions. I had always believed in the conspi- 
 racy ; but I never knew how systematic and how self-confi- 
 dent 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 stupendous 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 cannor refrain 
 from giving certain passages in final confirraatiion of what I 
 have said above. 
 
 * And first as to the Governments. Professor Friedrich 
 puts into the mouth of a diplomatist the following v/ords : 
 " 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'" {Diary^ 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 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 105 
 
 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 Gov- 
 ernments are by degrees acting an almost ridiculous part 
 towards the Council — first boasts; then embarrassment 
 connected with meaningless threats; and at last the confes- 
 sion 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 establish a firm opposi- 
 tion in the Council,^even in con trad ictio'n 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 Curia and of the 
 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 wliich the English news- 
 papers drew their inspiration, tlie chief perhaps was the 
 Augslmrg Gazette. This paper has many titles to special 
 consideration. The infamous matter of Janus first ap- 
 peared in it under the form of articles. During tlie Coun- 
 cil it had in Rome at least one English contributor. Its 
 letters on the Council have been translated into English, 
 and published by a Protestant bookseller in a volume by 
 Quirinus.* 
 
 A distinguished bisliop of Gcrmnny, one cf tlio rni- 
 ^ Pref:icc to Vol. III. Sermons on Ecr/cs'a.t.'cj/ Siii'fcw^s, p. x.w. iScc. 
 
io6 Aggressions of the Civil Power 
 
 nority opposed to the definition, whose cause the.4//^^- 
 burg 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 of the 
 Augsburg Gazetted "It is a pure iuTention," he adds, 
 ''that the Bishops named in that journal declared that Dol- 
 Imger 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, v/ith 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- 
 ness and abject mendacity the articles of the Augsburg Ga- 
 zette, They will present a formidable and lasting testimony 
 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 diocese another 
 public protest against the inventions of the Augsburg Ga- 
 zette. " The Atcgsburg Gazette^'' he says, " hardly ever pro- 
 nounces 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 per- 
 versions 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." 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power, 107 
 
 ' Again, Bishop Hefele, commenting on the Roman corre- 
 spondents 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 con* 
 science." 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 owii name without, as the 
 Bishop of Mainz sayS, the appendage of a falsehood. The 
 whole tissue of the correspondence is false. 
 
 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 also 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 recog- 
 nised by the Prussian law. But next, at a meeting at 
 Augsburg, a large infusion of German Rationalists 
 compelled them to enlarge their comprehension, an4 
 
 * Pi'trl Priv. part iii. pp. 4-7. 
 
io8 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 to include those who rejected most of the doctrines of 
 the Council of Trent. 
 
 Lastly, at Cologne and Bonn, they received the ac- 
 cession 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 DoUinger, at Bonn, 
 last September, declared (if the report be correct) that 
 Old Catholics are not bound by the Council of Trent. 
 
 In the sphere of theology and religion the 
 movement 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 Hohen- 
 lohe, the present German Ambassador at Paris. The 
 Berlin Government supported the Old Catholic Pro- 
 fessors who rejected the Vatican Decrees, on the plea 
 that the Council of Trent v/as knovvHi to the law in 
 Prussia, but that the Council of the Vatican was not 
 known. to it. It v/as exlex. Therefore the Government 
 recognised the legal status of the Old Catholics who 
 held to the Council of Trent. How they will still recog- 
 nise them as Old Catholics, now that they have re- 
 jected the Council of Trent at Bonn, it is not so easy to 
 say. Hov/ever, Dr. Rcinkens 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 
 
'Aggressions of the Civil Power. 109 
 
 friendship, and to use the ' Old CathoHc ' schism as a 
 we?tpon against the Cathohc Church. The ' Old Cath- 
 oHc ' schism has an attraction for certain minds in 
 which there is a strong hankering after the CathoHc 
 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 w^ith little encouragement. 
 
 There is not a doubt that the Berlin Government 
 aims at changing all the Catholics in Germany into 
 Old Catholics. 
 
 The Old Catholics, in their appeal to the Civil 
 Power, are doing what the Arians did after the 
 Council of Nicsea. They have been, and they will be, 
 the instigators of persecution against the CathoHc 
 Church. But they are blindly doing God's will. 
 When the Church has been purified, their place Vvill 
 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. Dollinger. The Berlin Cor- 
 respondent of the Daily Tclegrapli^ after noticing the 
 discrepancy between the despatch of Count Arnim, 
 published by Prince Bismarck, and his * Pro Memoria/ 
 which appeared in the Vienna Prcssc — the first ' treat- 
 ing the dogma of Infallibility as a mere theological dis- 
 sertation,' and the second, ^ seeing in it an event that 
 must overthrov/ Catholicism and the peace of CathoHc 
 States ' — proceeds to explain the contradiction thus: — 
 
 ' Tablet :Ve7vs/}apcr, Oct. 31 1S74, p. 546. 
 
no Aggressions of the Civil Power, 
 
 ' When Prince Hohenlohe, as leader of Bavarian foreign 
 affairs, sent- his well-known Circular to different Powers, ex- 
 plaining the dangers of that dogma, the German Chancellor 
 applied to Count Arnim, who answered that the Bavarian 
 Minister exaggerated the danger, being influenced by Bol- 
 linger. 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 
 Uohenlohe acknowledged that the Circular was ivritien under 
 Ddlli?iger's inspiration. The Prince asked the Count to visit 
 Bollinger, which he did. Bollinger convincingly explained to 
 Arnim the importance of the dogma; and, on his return, 
 Arnim tried everything to prevent the result of the Council by 
 repeatedly advising Prince Bismarck to interfere ; so the change, 
 in Arnim's opinion, must be traced to Bollinger.' 
 
 Before we enter upon the present conflict in 
 Germany, so carelessly touched and dismissed by Mr. 
 Gladstone, it is necessary to record the fact that, in 
 the year 1849, ^^^ ^S^^^ Article of the German Con- 
 stitution affirmed, that ^ Every religious Society shall 
 order and m.anage its own affairs independently, but 
 shall remain subject to the general power of the State/ 
 The Prussian Constitution also recognized this inde- 
 pendence. Such was the law until 1872. Under this 
 law the Catholics were lo3^al, 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, 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 1 
 
 not by the Catholics nor by the Church, but by the Civil 
 Power, Prince Von Bismarck is so conscious of this 
 fact, that he has spared no accusation, 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 in- 
 novations, intolerable to conscience, newly introduced, 
 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 anyone believes that the 
 Falck Laws were caused by the Vatican Council. The 
 French war was scarcely ended when Prince Von Bis- 
 marck 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 
 Catholic 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 pro- 
 duced. 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 Bi- 
 shops, 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 lo\'al 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 jot or tittle, was made on 
 their part ; that, on the part of Government, a new 
 
112 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 and elaborate legislation, anti-Catholic and intolerable 
 to conscience, was introduced in 1872. The whole in- 
 novation was on the part of Government. The new 
 laws excluded the Clergy from the schools ; banished 
 the religious orders ; made Government consent neces- 
 sary to the nomination 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 estab- 
 lished a final tribunal of Ecclesiastical appeal in Berlin. 
 And yet men w^ere found who had still the hardihood 
 to say that the Church had begun the conflict. At 
 last, Dr. Friedberg, Professor of Law at Leipsic, and 
 one of the chief advisers of Government in its Eccle- 
 siastical policy, let out the real cause. With an incau- 
 tious candour he has told us the truth. 
 
 I v/ill 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 
 rights of the State, that which, in the years 1848- 
 1850, it had acknowledged as the necessary *^ conse- 
 quence of its ovvm principles " ? ' (p. 9) 
 
 Bishop Ketteler answers, * The true reason of the 
 thorough systematic change of the Liberal party, as 
 well as of all those nneasures aimed against the lawful 
 
 ^ A translation made in Germany has been published by Messrs. 
 Burns & Oates, 17 Portman Street. 
 
Aggressio7is of the Civil Power, 1 1 3 
 
 rights of the Church, is ''the spiritual power of the 
 Church based upon the foundation of freedom"* 
 
 (p. II). 
 
 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, yi?r the ChitrcJi lias 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 conse- 
 quence,' he asks, ' with us if the Church were freed 
 from the control of the State?' 'On the contrary,' 
 says Dr. Friedberg, ' as the wdiole question has become 
 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, II). 
 
 Dr. Newman, more than thirty years ago, said that 
 Governments establish and endow Churches as people 
 cut the wings of magpies, that thc}^ may hop upon tlie 
 lawn and pick up . Avorms. ' Liberals love a tame 
 Church.* 
 
 I quote this in answer to those who have been 
 taunting the German Bishops with complaining of per- 
 secution and of yet holding to their legal status : Pha- 
 raoh has taught all oppressors ' not to let the people 
 
 ' Our crime as endangering the State,' sa\'s IVishop 
 Ketteler, ^ consists in this — that wheresoever the pco- 
 
114 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 pie and the Church are free, the people turn to the 
 Church, and not to the doctrines of the Liberal party' 
 
 (P- I3)> 
 
 ' Here we have the whole undisguised truth. To 
 
 separate the Christian people from the Church, to de- 
 prive 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 pro- 
 fessors 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-sight- 
 ed orthodoxy has sown and fostered indifference to- 
 w^ards the Church ; and also from the fact that the 
 Protestant Church did not create a constitution suited 
 to its own spirit. Who could count upon the High Con- 
 sistory Court of Berlin outliving for a day the separa- 
 tion of the Church from the State ? or that the fiercest 
 party strife would not break it up into sects ? But what 
 an opportunity for the compact mass of the Catholic 
 Church as opposed to these dismembered 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 politi- 
 
 ^ Year-Book of the Ger?7zan Empire, By Dr. F. von Holzendorff, 
 Leipzig, p. 473, 1872, 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 5 
 
 cal agent," and especially so by her opposition to Cath- 
 olicism. 
 
 ' Secondly, the Protestant Church cannot endure 
 freedom and independence. *' After separation from 
 the State it would be ^ dismembered.* The High Con- 
 sistory of Berlin would scarcely survive a day." 
 
 *• Thirdly, out of these dismembered elements an in- 
 crease would fall to the Catholic Church. Principles 
 truly Liberal. No longer shall the power of truth un- 
 der the protection of equal freedom decide between 
 the different creeds. In the hands of the Liberals the 
 Protestant Church is to become a *^ political 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 Catholics. If 
 the Church were set free, the Government would lose 
 ^* an immediate support and a co-operation so ncccssaiy 
 to the State for tJie internal reform of tlie CJmrcliy ' 
 
 The Bishop then sums upas follows : — The Govern- 
 ment 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 be- 
 cause it will overbear the State ; these arc not the mo- 
 tives, though they arc daily expressed in Parliament 
 and in the press by the Liberal party, to show that the 
 Catholic Church must be robbed of her Hberty, but be- 
 cause the German people must be torn away by force 
 from the Church ; and in order to attain this end, the 
 
 / 
 
1 1 6 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 Protestant State Church and the "- Old Catholics " are 
 to be used as weapons to fight the Catholic Church, 
 and to destroy it internally/ &c. (p. 17). 
 
 Such is the end and aim : now for the means. Dr. 
 Friedberg says, ' One must first attempt to draw off 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, Regis- 
 trars, Professors, State Teachers, and State Officials ; 
 make its vv'orship a State Ritualism, a ceremonial of 
 subjective feelings, not of objective Truth. This done, 
 religion will soon evaporate. The sum of all. Bishop 
 Ketteler says, is that 
 
 ^ The Strcte will regard the Church as a historical established 
 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 become 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 Unam Sanctam with nev/ e}^es. 
 
 Nov/, 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 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 7 
 
 national consciousness ; ' that is to say, a spiritual 
 blockade against the Church throughout the world, or 
 * our German consciousness ' against Christianity. 
 
 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 Ger- 
 man State University, 
 
 All independent seminaries and religious colleges 
 for boys are iilterdicted. 
 
 3. He is finally to be examined in the presence of 
 a Commissary of the Government. 
 
 4. The State has the superior direction of all in- 
 struction 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, depend- 
 ent 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 ap- 
 pointment and deposition, and the correctional disci- 
 pline of the Clergy by local Civil authorities, and partly 
 by a Supreme Royal court for Clerical affairs. 
 
ii8 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 The Clergy are therefore perfectly released : 
 
 First, from the jurisdiction of the Head of the 
 
 Church. 
 Secondly, from the jurisdiction of their own 
 Bishops. 
 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 patron- 
 age. 
 
 What kind of man will grow up out of the soil of 
 State Universities, and under the sun of State Patron- 
 age ? 
 
 What priest of fidelity to the Church and of per- 
 sonal dignity of character w^ill sell or lend himself to 
 such a despotism ? 
 
 We have read lately a little too much of the * pli- 
 ancy 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. Reinkens, 
 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, ser- • 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 1 1 9 
 
 vile, and degraded ? This seems to me to ' put light 
 for darkness, and darkness 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 exter- 
 nal 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 (iontrcl 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 Constitutional 
 rights; as an attempt to force on the Catholic Church the 
 Royal Supremacy of the Protestant Reformation ; as a viola- 
 tion of the Divine constitution and authority of the Catholic 
 Church ; and, finally, as leading men back again into the 
 Coesarism of the Pagan wodd, in which the temporal and 
 spiritual sovereignty were united in one person. The separa- 
 tion of the two powers which the Divine Founder of Chris- 
 tianity has introduced for the protection of the liberties of 
 human life in faith, conscience and religion woukl be once 
 more extinguished in Germany. It would tlien be easy to 
 overthrow, one after another, tlie other safeguards of the 
 freedom of the people. The army, tlic official State press, or 
 State school, or State Church, aU united together woukl 
 
1 20 Aggressions of the Civil Powe7\ 
 
 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 oi 
 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 doc- 
 trines ; they attempt to force upon the Cathohc Church a con- 
 stitution 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 despotism into Germany. 
 
 ^ May God guard our German Fatherland from the disas- 
 trous 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 * wdth more sadness 
 than the following words : — 
 
 ' I am not competent to give any opinion upon the parti- 
 culars of that struggle. The institutions oi" Germany, and the 
 relative estimate of State power and individual freedom, are 
 materially different from ours.' ^ 
 
 Are faith and conscience ' institutions * to be 
 ' estimated ' ^ relatively ' ? Is religious freedom, to 
 the vindication of which Mr. Gladstone has given a 
 long public life, a matter to be measured by geogra- 
 
 ^ The Vaiicait Decrees^ &^c. p. 48. 
 
 n 
 
Aggressions of the Civil Power. 121 
 
 phical cr 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 ag-p-res- 
 sion of the Cantonal Governments of Bale, 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 excommunicated 
 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 
 Christianity. The great barrier in their way is the Ca- 
 tholic Church. They are nov/ openly conspiring for its 
 overthrow. 
 
 In England our old craters arc extinct and the 
 mountains are quiet. Such a conflict has, happily, not 
 yet been rekindled among u?. No change o\\ the part 
 of the Catholic Church, of a kind to provoke such a con- 
 
122 Aggressions of the Civil Power. 
 
 flict, either has been or will be made. The dedining to 
 accept a scheme of education based on principles dan- 
 o-erous to CathoHc 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 responsi- 
 bihty will rest undividedly upon the head of anyone 
 who shall break our present public confidence and 
 peace. And that misdeed w^ould be indelibly written 
 in our history. 
 
T^^tie and False Progress. 123 
 
 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 every- 
 where are at this time destroying the first principle of 
 their own stability. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone has represented me as saying 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. 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 maybe 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 
 v;as speaking in defence at a time when every journal 
 in tlie country, v/ith hardly an exception, was day 
 ^'tftcr day assailing, and I must add misrepresenting, the 
 ori^.;-iu and office of the Temporal Government of the 
 Pope. My own words were as follows : — 
 
 ' Now, the Inst point on which I will (bvcll is thi^ : tlint ns 
 the Church of God has created — and that specially through 
 
124 T7'ne and False Progress. 
 
 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 sustained it. I ask, what has given it coherence? 
 What is it that has kept alive the governing principle among 
 men, but that pure f^iith or knowledge of God which has gone 
 forth from the Holy See, and has filled the whole circumfer- 
 ence 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 — illuminated and 
 inundated the whole Christian world. Now, I ask, what 
 has preserved tins in security, but the infallibility 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 hov/ those nations, which have separated themselves from 
 the Unity of the Catholic Church, and therefore are in opposi- 
 tion to the temporal sovereignty of Rome, 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 Church 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 institu- 
 tion, and supreme power compatible with the personal liberty 
 of the people, but the limitations which the Holy See, acting 
 through its Pontiffs, has imposed upon the Princes of the 
 world? Does anybody 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 
 
True and False Pi'ogress. 125 
 
 credit of having taught the people to submit. They have been 
 ;t]so accused of tyranny over Princes; at least let us give them 
 ihc honor of having taught Kmgs that their power is limited. 
 'v\\^ dread chimera at which the Enghsh 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 sove- 
 reign and subject ? The deposing power grew up by the pro- 
 vidential action of God in the world, teaching subjects obedi- 
 ence and princes clemency. 
 
 ' Now, in this tw^ofold 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 conserva- 
 tive 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 pre- 
 served. I should say further, that, vast and solid as Christen- 
 dom 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.' ^ 
 
 In the very same chapter from which Mr. Gladstone 
 has quoted, at page 46, the following statements occur 
 at pages 32 and 33 : — 
 
 (i)^Our Divine Lord committed to Ilis Church 
 and to His Vicar — the head on earth of that Church — • 
 
 ^ Tcuipoml Pozvcr of the Popes, lecture ii. pp. 44-47. (Bvinis, 1S62.) 
 
126 True and False Progress. 
 
 His Spiritual sovereignty, reserving to Himself His 
 Temporal or providential sovereignty. . . . There- 
 fore \.\i^ Spiritual sovereignty of the Church is a Divine 
 institution, and has a power directly ordained of God. 
 (2) There are other powers in the Avorld which are in- 
 directly ordained of God — -viz. all temporal sovereign- 
 ties. ... (3) By an indirect but Divine providence 
 our Divine Lord has liberated flis Vicar upon earth, 
 in the plenitude of His Spiritual sovereignty, from all 
 civil subjection. ... (4) By the same Providence 
 — indirect, indeed, but nevertheless 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 therefore 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, v/as examined by the censor- 
 ship, and printed at the Propaganda press. 
 
 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 his- 
 tory 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 
 
 ^ Temporal Power of the Popes y pp. 32, 33.' 
 
True aiid False Progress. 127 
 
 Civitate Dei is enough to prove that the civihsation of 
 the old world had run itself out by incurable corrup- 
 tion, 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. Dollinger in his work on ' The 
 Jev/ish and "the Gentile Nations.' I am indeed one of 
 those who still believe that we owe Christian homes to 
 Christian marriage, that v/e owe Christian men to Chris- 
 tian homes, that we owe Christian nations to Christian 
 men, and that the transmission of national Christianity 
 depends on Christian education. We owe, therefore, 
 the civilisation of Europe to Christian nations, and w^e 
 owe the whole, not to ' modern thought,' but to Chris- 
 tiai-i'y. 
 
 Moreover, I know of no agent by which Christianity 
 was thus brought to bear upon mankind but the Chris- 
 tian Church ; and, lastly, the heads of the Christian 
 Church were the chief legislators, guides, judges, and 
 protectors of this Christian 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 Patrimonies 
 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 civilisation of Europe 
 has been propagated by Christian marriage. Christian 
 education, and Christian Hiith. Until ' Luther's 
 
128 True and False Progixss. 
 
 mighty trumpet ' was blown it was bou*nd tog»ct«»her by 
 unity of faith, unity of worship, and unity of jurisdic- 
 tion 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, byregalism in Protestant nations; and, secondly, 
 by revolution in Catholic States. The principles of 
 1789 are Lutheranism 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, and ' the religious difficulty ' 
 forces them to become simply secular in legislation and 
 in action. So long as there v/as 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 temiporal 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 con- 
 dition of the Christian world ? Where are the Chris- 
 tian laws wdiich 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 
 
T7'iie and False Progress, 129 
 
 nations, of armed camps and retarded maturity. And 
 it is with this * progress and modern civiHsation that 
 the Roman Pontiff is invited to conform and to recon- 
 cile himself.' This is the sum and exposition of ' mo- 
 dern thought/ save only that it omits the Agnostic 
 theology De Deo nan existente, and the anthropjology of 
 Apes. Mr. Gladstone quotes this contemned proposi- 
 tion, recited in the Syllabus, as d. 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 v/ith the English Monarchy, founded and 
 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 Englislimen were once 
 perfectly one in failh. Luther's blast has given us 
 nearly three hundred years of penal laws, bitter con- 
 tentions, 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 relaxed, 
 streams of blood still flowed on for another hundred 
 years. P^or nearly three centuries we have been divided 
 in politics, because politics were mixed up with re- 
 ligion. Our Legislature teemed with penal laws such 
 as the Avorld 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 dangers, because we 
 were consciously doing wrong, as Prussia is at this 
 day. But now for fifty years we have had peace, be- 
 cause wc have commpn interests, and a solid conimgn 
 
130 True and False Progress. 
 
 weal. The three Kingdoms are without anxiety and 
 without fear. And why ? Because we have ehmi- 
 nated rehgious conflicts from our Legislation, be- 
 cause we have learned to be just, because v/e 
 have learned also that the Civil Ruler may pun- 
 ish what men do, but not what men think, un- 
 less they issue in acts against the State. All men, so 
 far as conscience and faith extend, are now equal be- 
 fore the lav/. No man is molested for his religion. 
 Although this is not the golden age of unity in truth, 
 which the Christian Church once created and Pius IX. 
 declares to be the only civilisation - and the only pro- 
 gress to which he can conform himself, though he toler- 
 ates Vvdiat he cannot cure ; nevertheless, it is a silver 
 age in Vv^hich v/e 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 stat^ of 
 religious belief and worship there is no w^ay of solid 
 civil peace, but in leaving all men free in their amplest 
 liberty of faith. It is because this is vital to our wel- 
 fare as an Empire, and because, as it seems to me, the 
 late sudden and needless aggression on the Catholic re- 
 ligion is dangerous to the social and political tranquil- 
 lity of these Kingdoms, that I have pointed to Ger- 
 many, as a warning. A monarchy of a thousand years 
 is a majestic thing in this modern world of fleeting 
 dynasties and of chronic revolutions. We possess a 
 royal lineage the least broken and the miost 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. 
 
True and False Progress, 131 
 
 Next after the line of Pontiffs, there is nothing in his- 
 tory more time-honored or grander than the Mon- 
 archy of Alfred, which reigns to this day. Does Mr. 
 Gladstone think that the Vatican Council binds me 
 to desire its overthrow ? Next to seein^^ arain the 
 laws and the faith of good King Edward restored 
 throughout the land, we desire to see the Sovereign- of 
 England reigning by equal laws over a people united 
 at least in everything that is right and just and lavv^ful 
 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 persuasion, 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 sur- 
 vives. 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 w^ould 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 individual 
 conscience. Thenceforward they fall under the impar- 
 tial administration of our mixed commonwealth. I 
 
132 True (iJid False Progress. 
 
 am not responsible for the application of them. My 
 conscience is not touched if public revenues are given 
 to a Presbyterian or to a Baptist School. My con- 
 science is not ill at ease even if grants arc made to a 
 school in which 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 con- 
 trol 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 re- 
 ceives his share of the public money. 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 Englishmen try to 
 forget. 
 
 It is for this reason that I lament when six mil- 
 h'ons 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, 
 
,-- Ti'tcc and False Progress, 133 
 
 either a traitor or a Iicrctic. If I am a heretic I sliall 
 lose my soul ; but for imputed treason I can only lose 
 my life. If men of Mr. Ghidstone'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 i)lain 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 j^elieve them.' I could not blame such 
 a man in refusing for so obvious a reason to listen to 
 Mr. Gladstone when he expostulates with the Vatican 
 Council. Indeed, I can conceive that it will not pro- 
 mote 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. 
 Moreover, 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 German)- 
 may have argued in this plain way, even before \\\r\ 
 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 pla\'- 
 ing with edged tools, and in a matter where it ii hardly 
 
134 Trzce afid False Progress. 
 
 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 Eng- 
 land. 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 wuU be broken. The destinies 
 of the British Empire are in strong hands, guided hy 
 calm heads, and supported by a balanced and steady 
 public opinion, v/hich in the last two months has mani- 
 fested a self-comxmand and an equity which do honour to 
 our country. 
 
 As to Germany I shall say no more. Luther's 
 might 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 hum.an heart, and a love for the Christian world 
 and a good-will to Germany, wall share in this desire. 
 
 But if the conflicts of Governments against the 
 Church are fatal to the public peace and to them.- 
 selves, as assuredly they would be to the British Em- 
 pire if our accusers should rekindle old strifes, and as 
 they assuredly w^ill 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 ag- 
 
 ^ See Archbishop Trench's Gitstuviis Adclphiis^ pp. 88, 'to^ i6r. 
 
True a7id False Pivgress. 135 
 
 gression against^ the Holy See has been carried on. I 
 say wanton, because it has been without a cause. I 
 say mischievous, because it has retarded and endanger- 
 ed 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 ques- 
 tion in its bearing on his Expostulation, I may do the 
 samiC. 
 
 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 words. Neither the present 
 party which rules Italy, nor the party which has en- 
 couraged 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 his * Primato degli Itali- 
 ani,' after proving that religion is the source of all civi- 
 lisation, 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 Rome 
 and of its belief, how is it possible to discuss this twofold argu- 
 ment, and to be silent about Catholicism and about tlie 
 Pop.e ? In writing a book upon Italy I ]H-otest tluit I desire to 
 S'pcak of tb.e livinir and real Italv as it exists at ib.is dav, not of 
 
136 T^'ue and False Progress, 
 
 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 differenced 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, be- 
 cause it possesses in its heart the fu'st 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 conspicuous in the political {civile) world 
 at this day * . . . 'the first is the exclusion of the Theology of 
 Revelation from the field of the Encyclopedia of human know- 
 ledge; 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 civi- 
 lisation, and to recall things to their first principles; endeav- 
 ouring to restore the universal primacy of religion in the circle 
 of things and of knowledge/ ....*! therefore do not believe 
 that I deceive myself in affirming 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 corner-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 
 
 ^ Gioberti, Prlmato drgli lialianiy vol. ii. pp. 28-31. 
 
True and False Progress. 137 
 
 destroyed by the ferocity of the northern barbarians. In its 
 stead a new Rome had been created, under the auspices, not 
 of Romulus, but of Peter, not of the Conscript Fathers of old 
 Rome, but of the Episcopate, and of the councils which are 
 the Patrician order and the Senate of the universal Christen- 
 dom. The Guelphs, therefore, did not separate the civil con- 
 stitution of Italy from the Pontificate, and, without confound- 
 ing the hum^ln 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 spring- 
 ing up again for the last century of the ancient spirit 
 of the Nominahsts and the Ghibellines, under the form 
 of GalHcanism, Jansenism, Cartesianism, Voltairianism, or 
 under the disguise of rationalism and German pantheism, 
 prompted by the same principles, and springing from 
 the same countries respectively as those former heresies. 
 And the evil will last as long as men persist in sub- 
 stituting a heathen or chimerical Italy in the place of a real 
 and a Christian Italy, which God, and a life of eighteen hun- 
 dred 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 tlic cul- 
 ture of our Peninsula to the Ploly See ; for tlie Pope is to the 
 universal Church that which the civiUsation of Italy is to that 
 of Europe.* ^ 
 
 ^ Gioberti, P?imafo dcgli Italiani, vol. ii. pp. 66, 67. 
 
138 True and False Progress. 
 
 I will add but one more passage, which will enun- 
 ciate 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 judg- 
 ing 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 concrete 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 in- 
 dependent of all foreign dynasties. 
 
 This is no mere speculation as to what the Catholic 
 religion and the Pope may be to Italy, but a strict his- 
 torical fact. The Pontiffs have been for fourteen hun- 
 dred 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 Gen- 
 seric. 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., 
 
 ^ Gioberti, Primato dcgli lialiaui^ vol. ii. pp. 60. 
 
True and False Progress. 139 
 
 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 Moham- 
 medan Power. In the great contest about Investitures, 
 the Pontiffs, from Gregory VII. to CaHstus 11. , 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 Communes was saved from the feudal 
 despotism of the Hohenstaufen by the Popes. Alexan- 
 'der III. and the Lombard League defended popular 
 liberty against Frederick Barbarossa. The City of 
 Alexandria is to this day the monument of the grati- 
 tude of the Lombard people. The City of Caesarea 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 Im- 
 perial despotism. Then came the contest of the people 
 and the Empire, the Guelfs and the Ghibellines. 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. In the fifteenth century Nicholas 
 V. maintained peace among the Princes and people of 
 Italy, and drew Naples, Milan, IHorcncc, Venice, and 
 Genoa into a Confederation to maintain the Italian 
 independence. 
 
140 True and False Pro gr est 
 
 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 II. laboured to drive all foreign domi- 
 nation out of Italy. Leo X. made it his chief policy 
 to liberate Italy from all foreign dominion, and to 
 unite all the Princes of Italy in a Confederation of in- 
 dependence. 
 
 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- 
 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 Pi^s IX. invited all the Princes of Italy to 
 
 ^ Exposttdatlon^ p. 49. 
 
True and False Pi'ogress. 141 
 
 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 
 up, without shock or overthrow of right or justice. 
 Once confederated, there was no identity of interests, 
 no unity of power, which might not have growm solid 
 and mature. This and the Supreme Council for the 
 Government of the Pontifical State are proof enough 
 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 let- 
 ter, 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 itnot be displeasing, there- 
 fore, to your Majesty that we turn to your piety and religion, 
 and exhort you with a flither'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 lamentable series of calamities that ever accompany 
 warfare, and are assuredly abhorred and detested by you. 
 Let it not be displeasing to the generous German peoi)le, tliat 
 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 neigh- 
 borhood. Thus we trust that the German nation, lionorably 
 proud of its own nationality, ^vill not engage its honor in 
 sanguinary attempts against the Italian nation, but will place 
 
142 Trite and False Progress, 
 
 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 boun- 
 daries with honorable 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 Em- 
 press, and to the Imperial family, the Apostolic benediction. 
 
 ' Given in Rome at Santa j\Iaria Maggiore, on the third 
 day of May, in the year 1848, the second of our Pontificate. 
 
 Pius PP. IX.' 
 
 The following 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 Itahan 
 Prince, relying for the maintenance of his power on the r.ffec- 
 tionate regard and the national sympathies of his people : the 
 resolution of the Pope to pursue a course of moderate reform, 
 to encourage railroads, to emancipate the press, to admit lay- 
 men to offices in the State, and to purify the law; but, above 
 all, the dignified independence of action manifested by the 
 Court of Rome, have filled the Austrians with exasperation and 
 apprehension. 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 sometimes trangressed the limits 
 of policy and decorum ; and the minor Princes of Italy are 
 terrified by extravagant intimations of hostile designs enter- 
 tained against them by the National Party, headed by the Pope 
 
True and False Progress. 143 
 
 and the House of Savoy, in order to persuade them that their 
 only safeguard is the Austrian army. These intrigues may be 
 thought necessary to the defence of the tottering power of 
 Austria south of the Alps, for every step made in advance by 
 Italy is a step towards the emancipation of the 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 Communis- 
 tic State, a Republic without Christianity, a democracy 
 without King orlontiff, forced itself. 
 
 Mazzini had been crying for years, * The Papacy is 
 extinct, Catholicism is i corpse, and the Pope knows 
 
 this Read the Evangelical Letter.' " He had 
 
 taught Young Italy the three degrees, of Guerilla 
 Bands, Insurrection, Revolution.^ The mine was 
 charged and the fuse already lighted. This widespread 
 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 authority, the 
 Socialist Revolution, the Roman Republic, 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 
 
 ^ Times ^ March 28, 1847. 
 
 ' Life and Writings of MazzirJ^ vol. i. p. 24 S. 
 
 ^ Ibid, p. io3, and Appendix, 1864. 
 
144 True and False Progress. 
 
 and ecclesiastical authority were enemies of the pub- 
 lic 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, mistrust, 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 wor- 
 ship, 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 ; but Philosophers and Doctrinaires, Conspi- 
 rators and Communists, are perverting the intellect 
 and dividing the wills of the rising men of Italy. If 
 such a conspiracy 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 elo- 
 quent speech, the other day, that a people which 
 breaks with its past is doomed to division and to insta- 
 bility. The rupture of France with its ancient tradi- 
 tions in 1789 has generated the brood of political 
 parties, which, from m.onth to month, thwart 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, 
 
True and False Progress, 145 
 
 freedom, and unity ; if it should forget the confedera- 
 tions wrought by the Pontiffs, by v/hich 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-hundredth part of the population. 
 The whole Chamber is, therefore, revolutionary, 
 and may be divided into two parties — the mo- 
 derate revolution and the extreme revolution. 
 The Catholic voters abstain from all participation in 
 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 
 himself by oath to the existing state of things, includ- 
 ing, 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 colleges, abolished theology from 
 
146 Trite and False Progress, 
 
 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 re- 
 ligious unity, and must be provided with civil marriage 
 and secular education, but in the midst of a population 
 absolutely and universally- Catholic. This, and not 
 v/hat Mr. Gladstone, with a strange want of accuracy, 
 supposes, is what the Syllabus condemns. It nowhere 
 condemns the civil policy which is necessary for a peo- 
 ple hopelessly divided in religion. For us this may be 
 a necessity. In Italy it is a doctrine of the Doctrin- 
 aires. 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 Aspro- 
 m.onte to this day, have been the chief hindrance to the 
 unification and pacification of Italy. And those who in 
 this country have encouraged and abetted those agita- 
 tors — not that they knew anything but that Garibaldi 
 was fighting against the Pope — have been am.ong the 
 worst friends of Italy ; I might say among the uncon- 
 scious but most mischievous 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, w^hen the leader of 
 rebellion came to 'England he was received with royal 
 
True and FaUe p7^ogress. 147 
 
 honours, and red carpets were spread for him at the 
 threshold of aristocratic houses, until his name was 
 found to be contagious. Then, in twenty-four hours he 
 ^Avas sped from England with the profuse facilities of de- 
 parture which Avait upon an unwelcome guest. In my 
 judgment — and I have formed it not in London from 
 newspaper correspondents, but in Rome 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 
 disorders 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 
 the day to persist in quarrelling with the Catholic 
 Church and with its Head. But this part of the sub- 
 ject has outgrown its proportion. I return, therefore, 
 to the proposition I set out to prove, — that by the col- 
 lisions which now exist between the Civil Powers and 
 the Church, tlie Governments of Europe are destroy- 
 ing 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 tempered Com- 
 monwealth as ours, seem to me to be serving neither 
 God nor their country. 
 
148 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 InfallibiHty of the Ro- 
 man Pontiff was not any temporal motive, nor was it for 
 temporal ends ; but that the Definition w^as made in 
 the face of all temporal dangers, in order to guard the 
 Divine deposit of Christianity, and to vindicate the 
 Divine certainty of Faith. 
 
 I have read many things in Mr. Gladstone's pamph- 
 let 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 de- 
 mands 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 ? ' ^ 
 
 Would it not have been more seemly and more dig- 
 nified 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 
 threaten it with opposition — why has it at such a time, 
 in spite of every inducement of policy, and every mo- 
 tive of interest, and in defiance of every pleading of 
 worldly wisdom, persisted in defining the Infallibility 
 
 ^ Expostulaiiojjy p. 47. 
 
Motive of the Definition. 149 
 
 of the Pope — a doctrine which is sure to bring down 
 upon the Church the animosities of all its enemies with- 
 out, and the conspiracies of all its faithless members 
 within?* Even Mr. Gladstone can see that this was 
 most impolitic. Why, then, will he accuse the Church 
 of always having a policy in its eye ? By his own con- 
 fession 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 Ro- 
 man 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 in deter- 
 mining 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: — 
 
 ' I. Because the doctrine of the Infallibility of the 
 Vicar of Jesus Christ, speaking ex catliedra^ 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 the 
 Church, and therefore at the foundation of Christianity 
 in the world. 
 
 * 4. Because this denial, if it arose informally about 
 tlie 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 shall pass 
 it over, the error will henceforward appear to be toler- 
 
150 Motive of the Definiiion. 
 
 ated, or at least left in impunity ; and the Pontifical 
 censures of Innocent XL, 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 en- 
 feebled 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 v/ill be still fur- 
 ther encouraged. 
 
 * 8. Because this erroneous opinion has at times 
 caused and kept open a theological and practical divi- 
 sion among pastors and people ; and has given occasion 
 to domestic criticisms, mistrusts, animosities, and alien- 
 ations. 
 
 *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 of di- 
 vision 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. 
 
 * II. 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 Infallibility 
 of the Church, and with the same universal joy and 
 
Motive of the Definition. 151 
 
 unanimity as the definition of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception. 
 
 * 12. Because the definition of the ordinary means 
 whereby the faith is proposed to the world is required 
 to complete the treatise *' De Fide Divina/' 
 
 * 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 de- 
 claring the truth, as in the dogma of the Immaculate 
 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; and to exclude the hereti- 
 cal supposition that infallible decrees are left to the 
 exposition and interpretation of a fallible judge. 
 
 * 15. Because the full 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 Gallicanism, 
 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 condemna- 
 tion of the propositions following: — 
 
 ' r. Tliat the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs in mat- 
 
152 Motive of the Definition. 
 
 ter of faith and morals do not oblige the conscience 
 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 Avhat the doctrine of Infallibility 
 signifies. 
 
 * The fourth and last chapter of the *' Constitution 
 on the Church '* defines the infallible doctrinal au- 
 thority 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 \.\\^ praxis of the Church, and by 
 the CEcumenical Councils, especially those in which the 
 East and the West met in union together; as, for in- 
 stance, 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. 
 
 ^ PctH Piivileghwt^ part ii. pp. 119-122. (Longmans, 1869.) 
 - St. Luke xxii. 31, 32. 
 
Motive of the Defuiition. 153 
 
 * The definition then affirms '' 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 ApostoHc 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 
 doctrine 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 : 
 
 * First, it defines the meaning of the well-known 
 phrase, loqtcens 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 teach- 
 ing ; 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 infiilliblc authority 
 to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church. 
 
 * Lastly, the dogmatic value of the definitions ex 
 cathedra ; namely, that they arc in themselves irre- 
 formable, because in themselves infallible, and not 
 
1 54 Motive of t!ie Definition, 
 
 because the Church, or any part or member of the 
 Church, should assent to them. 
 
 * These six points contain the whole definition of 
 Infallibility. 
 
 * I. First, the definition limits the Infallibility of 
 the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex 
 cathedra. 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 w^hole Church, he teaches the whole Church in 
 things of faith and morals. 
 
 ^ Our Lord declared "^ Super Cathedram Moysi sede- 
 runt Scribse et Pharissi — the Scribes and Pharisees 
 have sat 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 autho- 
 
 ^ Cardinal Sfondrati, writing in 1684, explained this truth as fol- 
 lows : — * The Pontiff does some things 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 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. This, therefore, is to act as Pon- 
 tiff, and to speak ex cathedra, which is not within the competency of 
 apy (other) doctor or bishop.' — Regale Sqcerclotlum, lib. iii. sec, i. 
 
Motive of the Definitioii. 155 
 
 rity 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 Petj^i, which in St. Cyprian, St. Optatus, 
 and St. Augustine, is em.ployed as synonymous with 
 the successor of Peter, and is used to express the cen- 
 tre and test of Catholic unity. Ex cathedra is there- 
 fore equivalent to ex cathedra Petri, and distinguishes 
 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 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. 
 
 * II. Secondly, the definition limits the range, or, to 
 speak exactly, the object of Infallibility, to the doc- 
 trine of faith and morals. It excludes, therefore, all 
 other matter wdiatsoever. 
 
 * 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 : 
 
 * First, the perpetuity and universality of the mis- 
 sion of the Church as t'he teacher of mankind. 
 
 ' St. INIalt. xxviii. 19, 20 
 
156 Motive of the Definitio7i. 
 
 * Secondly, the deposit of the Truth and of the Com- 
 mandments, that is, of the Divine Faith an3 Law en- 
 trusted to the Church. 
 
 * Thirdly, the office of the Church, as the sole inter- 
 preter 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 infallible 
 in this deposit of revelation. 
 
 * And in this deposit are truths and morals both of 
 the natural and of the supernatural order ; for the reli- 
 gious 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. 
 
 ' 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 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. 
 
 ' The Fourteenth CEcumenical Council of Lyons in 
 I274says, '' If any questions arise concerning faith, they 
 are to be decided by the Roman Pontiff.'^ ^ 
 
 * * Si qu3C subortae fuerint quaestiones de fide, suo (i.e. Rom. Pont.) 
 debent judicio definiri.' — Labbe, Condi, torn. xiv. p. 512, Venice, 1731. 
 
Motive of the Definition. 157 
 
 ^ The Council of Trent uses the formula *' In thin^rs 
 of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Chris- 
 tian 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 Scrip- 
 ture, 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 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 
 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 discerning and proscribing false philosophies aiul 
 false science.*^ . . . 
 
 * * In rebus fidei et morum ad sedificationem doctrinx ChristiaivrR 
 pertiiientium.' — Sess. iv. Decret. de Edit, et Usii Sac. Lib, 
 
 '■^ ' Further, the Church, which, together with the Apostolic olficc 
 of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives 
 froip God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any 
 should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (Coloss. ii. 8).' — 
 Constitution 0)1 the CatJiolic Faith, chap. iv. * Of Faith and Reason.* 
 
158 Mo live of the Definitior.. 
 
 * I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject 
 matters which fall within the limits of the Infallibility 
 of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to de- 
 termine the limits of its own Infallibility. Hitherto it 
 has not done so except by its acts, and from the prac- 
 tice of the Church we may infer to what matter its in- 
 fallible discernment extends. It is enough for the pre- 
 sent to show two things : — 
 
 * Firstly, that the Infallibility of the Church extends, 
 as we have seen, directly to the whole matter of re- 
 vealed truth, and indirectly to all truths which, though 
 not revealed, are in such contact v/ith revelation that 
 the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, ex- 
 pounded, and defended without an infallible discern- 
 ment of such unrevealed truths. 
 
 ^ Secondly, that this extension of the Infallibility of 
 the Church is, by the unanimous teaching of all theolo- 
 gians, at least theologically certain; and, in the judg- 
 ment of the majority of theologians, certain by the 
 certainty of faith. 
 
 * Such is the traditional doctrine respecting the In- 
 fallibility of the Church in faith and morals. By the 
 definition of the Vatican Council, what is traditionally 
 believed by all the faithful in respect to the Church is 
 expressly declared of the Roman Pontiff. But the de- 
 finition 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 ScJie7na de E celesta. 
 
 * Again, the definition declares the efficient cause of 
 Infallibility to be a Divine assistance promised to Peter 
 and in Peter to his successors. 
 
Motive of the Definition. 159 
 
 *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 Pri- 
 macy of Peter, which is perpetual in his successors. 
 
 * 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 priest- 
 hood, 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 Infallibility is not inspiration. 
 
 * The Divine assistance by which the Pontiff arc 
 guarded from error, when as Pontiffs they teach in 
 matters of faith and morals, contains no new revelation. 
 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 reve- 
 
 ' St. r.ukc xxii. 32. ' St. Matt. xvi. i8. 
 
i6o Motive of the Dcfinitio7i. 
 
 lation, 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 w^ould have been weakened throughout 
 the world. Every motive of worldly policy would have 
 tempted the Council to compromise, and to shrink from 
 defining it ; but the peremptory obligations 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 In- 
 fallibility 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 de- 
 
 ^ Petri Fiivllegiwn, part iii. pp. 56-60, 66, 78, 84. (Longmans 
 1870.) 
 
Motive of the DeJi7iitio7i. i6i 
 
 daring, 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 Avith my own 
 eyes, and heard with my own ears 
 
 I hope I shall not violate any confidence which 
 ought to be sacred, or any reserve the delicacy of w^hich 
 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 per- 
 sist 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 afifirm that * policy ' 
 had as little influence on the Council of the Vatican as 
 it had on the Council of Nicaea ; 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 Infallibility 
 of the Head of the Christian Church, the Council of 
 Nicaea ought also to have abstained from defining the 
 Hojndoicsion. There was violence all round about it. 
 There was the certainty of a schism. After the Coun- 
 cil eighty Bishops apostatised. They appealed, as all 
 
1 62 Motive of the Definitioit. 
 
 heretics ever do, to the Civil Powers. The Arian 
 Schism Vv-as formed ; it was protected by Emperor after 
 Emperor. Arianism became a State tool against the 
 Catholic Church. It infected Constantinople ; it spread 
 into Italy and Spain ; it lasted for centuries. But 
 where is it now ? And where now is the Creed of Ni- 
 C3ea ? The Homootision is at this day in the heart of 
 the whole Church throughout the w^orld. ^ So will it be 
 Vv'ith 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 Council 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 Roman Pontiff has steadily consolidated 
 itself, in the intellect and the will of the Church. What 
 was believed from the beginning has been nov/ forced 
 .into explicit declaration. But while the Church has 
 thus been more and more defining its faith with a 
 Divine precision, the w^orld has wandered ofif farther 
 and farther into the Vv^'-ilderness 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 w^hich it rested. 
 The chief character of the sixteenth century w^as 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 
 consequences of this denial. It is nearly complete in 
 the rationalism and infidelity of Germany. The * Cen- 
 
Motive of the Defijiition. 163 
 
 tuna priErogativa * has a mournful privilege of prece- 
 dence in the Comitia of unbelievers. It has run its 
 course, too, in Switzerland ; and Imust add, with sad- 
 ness, it is running its course in the widespread doubt 
 which is undermining the Christianity of England. Day- 
 after day I hear the words, * I wish I knew what to be- 
 lieve, and why to believe anything:* and this from 
 some of the noblest and most masculine natures, who 
 recoil from the incoherence and contradiction of teach- 
 ers who gainsay one another. But here is a subject on 
 which I have no desire 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 en- 
 tire 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 them will recognise the Divine guid- 
 ance 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- 
 
164 Motive of the Definitio7i. 
 
 petual and infallible expression in the voice of its Visi- 
 ble Head. 
 
 But it is now more than time to sum up what I hope 
 has been sufficiently proved. 
 
 My first answer to the charge that the Vatican Coun- 
 cil 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 consti- 
 tution of the Church and the immutable duties of natu- 
 ral 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 Constitutions of Clarendon, the 
 claim of Investitures, the creation of Royal Courts 
 of final appeal, and the like ; that these in- 
 vasions of the Spiritual domain ever have been 
 from the attempts of Governments to subject 
 the Church to their own jurisdiction ; and now 
 more 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 Rome 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 
 
Motive of the Definition. 165 
 
 He should be holden by it;'/ and next, because the 
 Civil Governments, that are now conspiring against it, 
 are preparing for their own dissolution. 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 Spiritid Sancto ct nobis' 
 
 ^ Acts ii. 24. 
 
1 66 Conchtsion. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 AxD now there only remains for me the hardest and 
 saddest part of the task, which has not been sought by 
 m^e, 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 
 miore pain, and none of them have cost me so much as 
 tliat which I am about to write. 
 
 Thus far I have endeavoured to confine myself to 
 the subject- m^atter 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 fellow-country- 
 nien, the nature of the act v/hicli he has done. 
 
 He has not only invited, but instigated Catholics 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 beheve 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 
 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 Vv'ith a more q-enerous and disinterested 
 
Co7tcltiszon. 167 
 
 good-v/ill than I have. No one has more gladly appro 
 ciated his gifts ; no one has more equitably interpreted 
 certain acts of his political life, nor has hailed his suc- 
 cesses with greater joy. But when he casts off the 
 character of a statesman, for which he has shown so 
 great capacity, to play the Canonist and Theologian, 
 for v/hich 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 pliabihty of 
 the Council ; ' * hideous mummies ; * * head-quarters ; ' 
 * the follies of Ecclesiastical power ; ' * foreign arro- 
 gance ; ' * the myrmidons of the Apostolic Chamber ; ' 
 'the foreign influence of a caste.' I transcribe these 
 v/ords from liis pages with repugnance; not, indeed, 
 for our sake against whom they are levelled, but for 
 the statesman who has thought them fitting. Mr. 
 Gladstone can do many tilings; but he cannot do all 
 things. lie has a strong hand; but there is a bow 
 which he cannot bend, lie has here tried his haiul at 
 a task for which, v/ithout something more than mere 
 
1 68 Conclusion. 
 
 literary knowledge, even his varied gifts will not suffice. 
 This Expostulation is, as I have already said, an act 
 out of all harmony and proportion with a great states- 
 man's life. 
 
 I have wTitten these words with a painful con- 
 straint ; 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 barren of all good re- 
 sult, 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 miscon- 
 ceptions 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 
 confident that his impeachment will be withdrawn. 
 His own mind is too large, too just, and too upright to 
 refuse to aicknowledge 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, 
 
Conchtsion, 169 
 
 reconciled as they still may be by a return of just laws, 
 will giv^e 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 un- 
 doing its un-Catholic and therefore un-Italian policy, 
 then its unity and independence 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 faich. 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 
 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 haye 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 perpetually multiplied, 
 binding indissolubly in one all men and all races of 
 our Imperial Commonwealth. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 APPENDIX A. 
 
 InNOCENTIUS III. PiLELATIS PER FrANCIAM CONSTITUTIS. A.D. 1200. 
 
 NoviT Ille, qui nihil ignorat : et infra, 
 
 Non putet aliquis, quod jurisdictionem illustris Regis Francorum 
 perturbare, aut minuere intendamus, cum ipse jurisdictionem nostram 
 nee velit, nee debeat impedire. Sed cum Dominus dicat in Evan- 
 gelio, * Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade et corripe eum inter te et 
 ipsum solum : si te audierit, lucratus eris fratrem tuum ; si te non 
 andierit, adhibe tecum unum vel duos, ut in ore duorum vel trium 
 testium stet omne verbum. Quod si te non audierit, die Ecclesias : 
 si autem Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publica- 
 nus. ' ^ Et Rex Anglias sit paratus sufficienter ostendere, quod Rex 
 Francorum peccat in ipsum, et ipse circa eum in correctione processit 
 secundum regulam Evangelicam, et tandem quia nullo modo profecit, 
 dixit Ecclesiae. Quomodo nos, qui sumus ad regimen universalis 
 Ecclesiae superna dispositione vocati, mandatum divinum possumus 
 non exaudire, ut non procedamus secundum formam ipsius? Nisi 
 forsitan ipse coram nobis, vel Legato nostro, sufllcicntem in contra- 
 rium rationem ostendat. Non enim iniendinius judlcare de feudo, cujtis 
 ad ipsum spectat judicium : nisi forte jure communi per speciale privi- 
 legium, vel contrariam consuetudinem aliquid sit detractum : sed de- 
 cern ere de peccaio^ cujus ad 7ws pertinct sine dubitatione censura, qnam in 
 
 quemlibct ex ere ere possumus et deb emus Cum enim non 
 
 humanx constitutioni, sed divinae potius innitamur, quia potestas 
 nostra non est ex homine, sed ex Deo, nullus qui sit sanae mentis 
 ignorat, quin ad ofiicium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortal i pec- 
 cato corripcre quemlibet Christianum : et si corrcctioncm contemp- 
 serit, per districtioncm ccclcsiasticam cocrccre. Sed forsan dicetur, 
 
 • Matt xvili. 15-17. 
 171 
 
172 Appe^idices. 
 
 quod aliter cum regibus et aliter cum aliis est agendum. Caeterum 
 scriptum novimus in lege divina: ' Ita magnum judicabis ut parvum ; 
 nee erit apud te acceptio personarum.' ^ — Corpus Juris Canonici, 
 JDecret. Gregor, lib. ii. tit. i. cap. xiii. 
 
 BONIFACIUS VIIL, AD PERPETUAM FvEI MeMORIAM, A.D. I302. 
 
 Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam et ipsam Apostolicam ur- 
 gente fide credere cogimur et tenere. Nosque hanc 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 suae:''^ 
 quse unum corpus mysticum repra^sentat, cujus caput Christus, 
 Christi vero Deus. In qua unus Dominus, una fides, unum bap- 
 tisma.^ Una nempe fuit Diluvii tempore area Noe, unam Ecclesiam 
 prsefigurans, quae in uno cubito consummata/ unum, Noe videlicet, 
 gubernatorem habuit et rectorem, extra quam omnis subsistentia 
 super terram legimus fuisse deleta. Hanc autem veneramur et 
 unicam ; dicente Domino in Propheta, 'Erue a framea, Deus, animam 
 meam et de manu canis unicam meam ;'^ pro anima enim, id est, pro 
 seipso capite simul oravit et corpore : quod corpus unicam scilicet 
 Ecclesiam nominavit, propter sponsi, fidei, sacramentorum et chari- 
 tatis Ecclesiae unitatem. Haec est tunica ilia Domini inconsutilis,^' 
 quae scissa non fuit sed sorte provenit. Igitur Ecclesiae unius ct 
 unicas unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita quasi monstrum, 
 Christus videlicet, et Christi vicarius Petrus Petrique successor; 
 dicente Domino ipsi Petro, * Pasce oves meas,' ' * meas,' inquit, et ge- 
 neraliter non singulariter has vel illas, per quod commisisse sibi intel- 
 ligitur universas. Sive ergo Graeci, 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, spiritu- 
 alcm videlicet et temporalem, Evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam 
 dicentibus Apostolis, * Ecce gladii duo hie,' ^ in Ecclesia scilicet, 
 cum Apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus nimis esse sed 
 satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, 
 male verbum attendit Domini proferentis, * Converte gladium tuum 
 in vaginam.*^° Uterque ergo est in potestate Ecclesiae, spiritualis 
 
 * Deut. 1, 17. - Cant. vi. 8. ^ Eph. iv. 5. * Gen. vi. 16. 
 
 ^ Psalm xxi. 21. ^ Joann. xix. 23, 24. ' Joann. xxi. 17. 
 
 ^ Jcann. x. 16. ^ Luc. xxii. 30. ^^ Matt. xxvi. 52. 
 
'Appendices. i 
 
 /o 
 
 scilicet giadius et materialis. Sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille veio 
 ab Ecclesia exercendus. Ille sacerdotis, is inanu regum et militum, 
 sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse 
 sub gladio et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati : 
 nam cum dicat Apostolus, * Non est potestas nisi a Deo, quae autem 
 sunt a Deo ordinata sunt:'^ non autem ordinata cssent, nisi giadius 
 esset sub gladio, et tanquam inferior reduceretur per alium in su- 
 prema. Nam secundum beatum Dionysium, lex divinitaiis est, in- 
 fima 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. Spiritualem autem et dignitate 
 et nobilitate terrenam quamlibet praecellere potestatem, oportet tanto 
 clarius nos fateri quanto spiritualia temporalia antecellunt. Quod 
 etiam ex decimarum datione, et benedictione, et sanctificatione, ex 
 ipsius potestatis acceptione, ex ipsarum rerum gwbernatione claris 
 oculis intuemur. Nam veritate testante, spiritualis potestas terrenam 
 potestatem instituere liabet et judicare, si bona non fuerit, sic de Ec- 
 clesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae: 
 ' Ecce constitui to hodie super gentes et regna,' " et csctera quaj scqu- 
 untur. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spiri- 
 tuali, sed si deviat spiritualis minor a suo superiori : si vero suprema, 
 a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari, testante Apostolo, * Spiri- 
 tualis homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a nemine judicatur.'^ Est 
 autem hsec auctoritas, etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, 
 non humana, sed potius divina, ore divino Petro data, sibique suis- 
 que successoribus in ipso, quem confessus fuit petra firmata, dicente 
 Domino ipsi Petro, * Quodcunque ligaveris,'^ etc. Ouicunque igilur 
 huic potestati a Deo sic ordinat?e resistif, Dei ordinationi resistit,^ 
 nisi duo sicut Manichaeus fmgat esse principia: quod falsum ct 
 liaereticum judicamus: quia testante Moyse, non in principiis, sed in 
 principio coelum Dcus creavit ct terram.^ Porro subesse Romano 
 Pontifici omni humanac crcaturx declaramus, dicimus, definimus ct 
 pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. 
 
 Datum Latcrani xiv kal. Dccembris, pontificatus nostri anno 
 octavo. 
 
 Corpus Juris C:\XiO\\iz\, Extrava^. Commupi. lib. i. 
 Dc Majoritate et Obeiiientia^ cap. i. 
 
 ' Rom. xiii. t. "^ Hicr. i. lo. ' i Cor. ii. 15. 
 
 * Malt. xvi. 19, fi Roia. xili. 2. * Cen. i, 1. 
 
1 74 Appmdices. 
 
 Clementis v. Diploma, a.d. 1306. 
 
 Clemens Episcopus, etc. Ad perpetuara rei meraoriam. 
 
 Meruit carissimi filii nostri Philippi regis Francorum illustris sin- 
 cerss devotionis ad nos et Ecclesiam Romanam integritas, et progeni- 
 torum suorum prxclara merita meruerunt meruit insuper fida regni- 
 colarum pietas, ac devotionis sinceritas, ut tarn regnum quam regem 
 favore benevolo prosequamur. Hinc est quod nos dicto regi et regno 
 per definitionem sen declarationem bonae memorise Bonifacii PP. 
 VIII. praedecessoris nostri, quae incipit Unam sanciam^ nullum vol- 
 umus vel intendimus praejudicium generari. Nee quod per illam 
 rex, regnum, regnicolae praelibati amplius Ecclesiae sint subjecti quam 
 antea existebant. Sed omnia intelligantur in eodem esse statu quo 
 erant ante definitionem praefatam, tam quantum ad Ecclesiam quam 
 etiam quod regem et regnum superius nominatos. 
 
 Datum Lugduni kalendis Februarii, pontificatus nostri annit 
 primo. 
 
 Labbe, Concilia^ sub ann. 1305, tom.xiv. p. 1374, 
 ed. Ven. 1731. 
 
 APPENDIX B. 
 
 Extract 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 everywhere 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 re- 
 sisteth 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 allegi- 
 ance to their princes and unite to drive them from their thrones. 
 
 ^ Rorn. xiii, q. 
 
Appendices. 175 
 
 For this reason, to avoid so base a crime, it is a well-known fact 
 that the first Christians, in the midst of persecutions, rendered meri- 
 torious 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 not con- 
 trary to their religion, but by persevering therein even to shedding 
 their blood in battle for them. 
 
 * Christian soldiers,' says St. Augustine, * served an unbelieving 
 Emper9r, but when the cause of Christ was in question, they ac- 
 knowledged only Him who is in Heaven. They distinguished be- 
 tween the Eternal Lord and a temporal lord, and were nevertheless 
 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, O 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 con- 
 spicuous 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 willing, even at great odds, who so readily oifer 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 ruling : more enemies would have been left than citizens : 
 but now you have fewer enemies, owing to the number of Clnis- 
 tians.'^ 
 
 These luminous examples of immovable loyalty to princes, which 
 necessarily followed from the holy precepts of the Christian religion, 
 
 ' St. Au?:tr.t. /// Psalm cxxiv. n. 7. 
 * 'rcrtiilllai in Aj'olo^. cap. xxxvii. 
 
1 76 Appendices. 
 
 at once condemn the detestable pride and wickedness of those who, 
 boiling with unbridled lust for an inordinate liberty, are wholly en- 
 gaged in destroying and tearing to pieces all the rights of princes in 
 order to reduce the nations to slavery under pretence of liberty. — See 
 Rccueil des Allocutions des Souverains Pontifcs, Paris, Le Cl^re, 1865, 
 pp. 165-6. 
 
 APPENDIX C. 
 
 For the accuracy of the following statement I have direct evi- 
 dence : 
 
 For several years past the Radical authorities of the Diocese of Basle 
 have persecuted the Catholic Church, as they still continue to do. 
 Formerly the persecution was carried into effect, parti}?- by violence 
 and pardy by underhand means ; but it was always specious and 
 very injurious 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 lyranny of the priesthood 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, supported 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 functions of the Holy See and the 
 Episcopate, and so addinj to their temporal rule the spiritual govern- 
 ment of souls. Not only have they possessed themselves of the direc- 
 tion of all public schools, and of the administration of all pious foun- 
 dations, but they have destroyed all the monastic, capitular, and eccle- 
 siastical institutions, claimed the right to regulate the parochial system, 
 the preaching of the Gospel, catechising, confessions, first commu- 
 nions of children, the celebration of public worship, processions, 
 burials and benedictions, and even extended their jurisdiction to ma- 
 trimonial causes. More than this, by the Federal Constitution, which 
 the recent revolutionary laws have just extended to the Catholic can- 
 tons, contrary to the v/ill of the populations as expressed by the vote 
 of an immense majority, the State has virtually and insidiously sup- 
 
Appendices. 177 
 
 pressed the Catholic Church by the introduction 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 popula- 
 tions have losi 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 Thurgovie have sent their delegates to an assembly call- 
 ing itself a Diocesan Conference, composed not of ecclesiastics, but 
 in o-reat part of Protestants, and of lay-Catholics notoriously hostile 
 to the Church. Such a body of course possessed no legal authorit}', 
 but notwithstanding its patent incapacity, it committed, among many 
 other illegal and unjust acts, that of pronouncing a sentence of depri- 
 vation against the Bishop of Basle, on the 29th of January, 1S73. The 
 principal offence imputed to him was, that 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 Hoi)'- See, and the Church, a series of laws favouring schism and 
 apostasy have been passed by the five cantonal governments in ques- 
 tion. They have forbidden the Bishop of Basle to exercise his epis- 
 copal 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 the cantons 
 for having protested against these unjust acts. 
 
 But it is the Protestant Canton of Berne which has signalised it- 
 self beyond all others by its despotism and its cruelty. It has sus- 
 pended all the parish priests of the canton from their pastoral func- 
 tions, and has since then deprived them, as well as all their curates, to 
 the number of sixt5'-nint?. It next pronounced sentence of cxilo o't 
 
178 Appendices., 
 
 the whole clerg}^ 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 govern- 
 ment then drove all the priests out of their churches and presbyteries, 
 and confiscated all their benefices and revenues, so that they are de- 
 prived of all means of subsistence. Before the sentence of exile was 
 carried out, many of them were moreover punished by fine and im- 
 prisonment. 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 at- 
 tached to their pastors. In many parishes not a schismatic is to be 
 found, and in others, containing a numerous population, the excep- 
 tions are v^xy few. In a word, the Catholics of the Bernese Jura main- 
 tain 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 persecution is that 
 the Government of Berne has sought in ever}^ part of Europe foreign 
 priests in order to replace the lawfully 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 over 
 the churches and presbyteries to them, and supports 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 sacraments, or hear mass, and they even bury their 
 own dead without the assistance of a priest. It is thus that religious 
 
Appendices. 1^9 
 
 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 cf the public burdens ! 
 
 By the course it has pursued the Government of Berne has violated 
 the treaties and constitutions v/nich 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 
 v/hich it has imposed, against their will, 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 established 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 Radical authorities carry on the same persecu- 
 tion of the Catholics of the cantons. The government has succeeded 
 in placing three schismatical priests in as many parishes. It has sup- 
 pressed and confiscated the celebrated and ancient abbey of the Bene- 
 dictines at Mariastein and the Chapters of Schoennenwerth and of the 
 Bishopric of Basle at Soleure. In the other mixed cantons where the 
 anti-Catholic Radicals arc in a majority, the Catholics have much to 
 suffer. 
 
 The Diocese of Basle includes seven cantons — viz. Soleure, 
 Argovic, 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 Schaffhausen, both of which 
 form part of the same diocese. 
 
 The Diocese of Basle comprises 430,000 Catholics" and 800,000 
 Protestants and other denominations. It contains 800 priests, only 
 seven of whom have become Old Catholics, The so-called Diocesan 
 Conference has pushed its pretensions to the point of prescribing what 
 authors are to be used by ecclesiastical students in the scminaiy ! 
 The bishop w^as not even free to appoint the superior and his assist- 
 ants, but was obliged to obtain the 'Placet' of tlie State for sucli no- 
 minations, as v/cll as for his Pastoral Letters. 
 
PRICE FIFTY CENTS 
 
 Vatican Decrees 
 
 IN THEIR BEARING ON 
 
 CIVIL ALLEGIANCE. 
 
 BY 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER. 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 *- ' New York : 
 
 ■\\i\: ( ACHOLIC I'lnii.uw ri().\ sociktv, 
 
 No. 9 W.\kui:n Sikkkt. 
 
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR 1875. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY 
 
 Has in press the following works : 
 
 The Youiig*L.adie;*' Illustrated Reader. 12mo, cloth. $1 25 
 
 The Life 'of Father Bernard, C.SS.R. Translated 
 
 from the Fr!?nch. 1 vol. , . . . . . . . 1 50 
 
 Liife of St. John the Evang-elist. Translated from the 
 
 French. 1 vol. 13mo, cloth, . . . . . . 2 00 
 
 Be Xot Hasty in Judging. Translated from the French 
 
 by P. S. 16mo, 1 00 
 
 manual of the Blessed Saeranient. . 1 00 
 
 The Vatiean I>eerees and Civil Alleg^ianee. By 
 
 Archbishop Manning, 50 
 
 The "IBistress of Xo vices enlightened upon her Duties. 
 
 Cloth, 1 50 
 
 The Kinji^'s Hig^hiviiy : or, The Catholic Church the Way 
 of Salvation, proved from the Scriptures. By Rev. A. F. 
 Hewit. 1 vol. 16mo, \ . . 1 50 
 
 A Letter to the Duke of Norfolk on the Oeeasion 
 of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation. By John Henry 
 ^^Tewman, D.D. Paper, '50 
 
 The Office of Holy Week, according to the Roman Mis- 
 sal and Breviary, in Latin and English. This is a new, im- 
 proved, and enlarged edition, and is printed from large type. 
 Cloth, arabesque 75 
 
 Deharhe's Complete Catechism. Translated by Fan- 
 
 der, 75 
 
 The Young Catholic's Illustrated Fifth Reader. 
 
 12mo, cloth, . . . . . . . . . . 1 25 
 
 The Young Catholic's Illustrated Sixth Reader. 
 
 12mo, cloth, 1 50 
 
 The Veil Withdrawn. By Mrs. Craven. 1 vol. 8vo, . 1 50 
 
 The Catholic Publication Society, 
 
 LAWRENCE EEHOE, Gen Agrent. 
 
 9 AVarren Street, jSTe^w Y'ork. 
 
APvCIIBISHOP MANNING'S WORKS. 
 
 Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects, Yol. L, 
 
 '' III, . 
 
 Temporal Power of the Pope, 
 
 Essays on Various Subjects (Edited by Dr. Manning), Yol. I., 
 
 u u .. u u III 
 Answer to Gladstone, 
 
 DR. NEWMAN'S WORKS. 
 
 Apologia Pro Yita Sua, . . . 
 Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent,. 
 
 Answer to Gladstone, 
 
 Theological Tracts, 
 
 Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in 
 Sermons on Yarious Occasions, 
 Difficulties of Anglicans, .... 
 
 An Essay on Miracles, 
 
 The Office and Work of Universities, 
 
 Parochial and Plain Sermons. Complete in 8 vols. 
 
 Sermons on Subjects of the Day, 
 
 Sermons before the University of Oxford, 
 
 Essays, Critical and Historical. 2 vols. , 
 
 The History of the Arians. New Edition, 
 
 Historical Sketches. 3 vols.. 
 
 Lectures on Justification, .... 
 
 Callista 
 
 Church of tlie Fathers, 
 Discussions and Arguments, 
 Essay on Development, 
 Yerses on Yarious Occasions, 
 Loss and (Train, . . . . 
 Sermons to Mixed Congregations, 
 Address 
 
 England, 
 
 Per vol.. 
 
 The Catliolic rublicatioii Society, 
 
 9 WARREN STREET, NEW YORK. 
 
lie^HthaUc ffarld: 
 
 A 
 
 MONTHLY MAGAZINE 
 
 S^m^S'^^l &i%^i^a^t>'mr^ a^4 ^^i^m^Q^m 
 
 I 
 
 The Catholic World coiitainl'*^riginal articles from the best 
 Catholic English writers at home and ^abroad, as well as translations 
 from the reviews and magazines of Frahce, Germany, Belgium, Italy, j 
 and Spain. Its readers are thus put in possession of the choicest pro- i 
 ductions of Euiopean periodical literature in a cheap and convenient | 
 form. 
 
 Extract from Letter of Pope Pius IX, \ 
 
 Rome, Dec. 33, 1868 
 
 Rev, L T. Hbckbr: | 
 
 We heartily congratulate you upon the esteem which your periodical, " The ; 
 Catholic World," has, through its erudition and perspicuity, acquired even among : 
 those who differ from us, et.*,. PIUS IX., Pope. . 
 
 Letter from the Mod lieu, ArcJihisJiop <f Xein Y. >/•/.■. 
 
 New York, February 7, 1865. 
 Dear Father Hpckeb: 
 
 I hare read the Prospectus which you have kindly submitted of a new Catholic 
 Magazine, to be entitled ''The Catholic World."' which it is proposed pubhshing 
 in this city under your supervision ; and I am happy to state that there is nothing 
 in its whole scooe and spirit which has not my hearty approval. The want of some 
 such periodical is widely and deeply felt, and I cannot doubt that the atholio com- 
 munity at large will rnjoice at the prospect of having ilii;s \raut, if not fully, at least 
 in great measure supplied. 
 
 With the. privilege which you have of drawing on t'le intellectual wealth of 
 Catholic Europe, and the liberal means placed at your disposal, there ought to be i 
 no such word as/i///?//c^ in your vocabulai-y. ' 
 
 Hoping that this laudable enterprise will meet with a well-merited s\iccess, and 
 under G-oi s blessing become fraitful in all the good which it proposes, i 
 
 I remain, Rev. and Dear Sir, very truly, your friend and servant in Christ ; 
 
 *J< JOHN. Archbishop of New York. | 
 
 f^opi/ of Letter from C ir^UiKtl uarnobv, 
 
 KoMK, September .', 1.^65. 
 Hev. Fathkr : i 
 
 I have heard of the publication of 'The Catholic World" with great satis- i 
 faction. I anticipate for it a complete success. There are so many periodicals in 
 our day occupied in attacking the trutb, that it is a source of pleasure to its friends i 
 when the same means are employed in the defence of it. 1 return you my thanks ' 
 for the attention paid iu standing me ''The CHthoh':^ SVorld." I pray the Lord to 
 preserve you many years. Alfectirnatelv in the Lo^ J, 
 
 ALEXANDER, CARDINAL BARNABO, 
 
 Prefect of the Propaganda. 
 Rev. I. T. HECKER, Superior of the Congregation of St. Paul, N. Y. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC WORLD 
 
 Forms a double-column octavo magazine of 141 pages eacli number, 
 making two large volunies, or 1738 pages, each year, and is funii.^hed to 
 subricribors for $5 a y-'ai\ ii variably iu advance. Single copies .j() cents. 
 All remittances and communications on business sliould be addressed to 
 
 THE OATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 I Lawrence Kehoe, Qen. Agent, 
 
 I P. O. Box 5,396, 9 WARREN STRluET, NEW YORK. 
 
 J. 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pr 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxid 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 
 
 PreservationTechnolo 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESER> 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 1606 
 (724)770:2111