No

ment of a body, may still be limited by law. other power can be above them. But it does not follow that they can command from all persons an unconditional obedience, unless themselves empowered by law so to do. We are familiar, under the British monarchy, both with the term supreme, and with its limitation.

The Archbishop, however, quotes a Canon or Chapter of a Roman Council in 863, which anathematises all who despise the Pope's orders with much breadth and amplitude of phrase. If taken without the context, it fully covers the ground taken by the Vatican Council. It anathematises all who contemn the decrees of the Roman See in faith, discipline, or correction of manners, or for the remedy or prevention of mischief. Considering that the four previous Canons of this Council, and the whole proceedings, relate entirely to the case of the Divorce of Lothair, it might, perhaps, be argued that the whole constitute only a privilegium, or law for the individual case, and that the anathema of the Fifth Canon must be limited to those who set at nought the Pope's proceedings in that case. But the point is of small consequence to my argument.

But then the Roman Council is local; and adds no very potent reinforcement to the sole authority of the Pope. The question then remains how to secure for this local and Papal injunction the sanction of the Universal Church, in the Roman sense of the word. Archbishop Manning, perfectly sensible of what is required of him, writes that "this Canon was recognised in the Eighth General Council, held at Constantinople in 869." He is then more than contented with this

array of proofs; and, confining himself, as I am bound to say he does, in all personal matters throughout his work, to the mildest language consistent with the full expression of his ideas, he observes that I am manifestly out of my depth. *

I know not the exact theological value of the term "recognised"; but I conceive it to mean virtual adoption. Such an adoption of such a claim by a General Council, appeared to me a fact of the utmost significance. I referred to many of the historians of the Church: but I found no notice of it in those whom I consulted, including Baronius. From these unproductive references I went onwards to the original documents.

The Eighth General Council, so-called, comprised only those Bishops of the East who adhered to, and were supported by, the See of Rome and the Patriarch Ignatius, in the great conflict of the ninth century. It would not, therefore, have been surprising if its canons had given some at least equivocal sanction to the high Papal claims. But, on the contrary, they may be read with the greatest interest as showing, at the time immediately bordering on the publication of the false Decretals, how little way those claims had made in the general body of the Church. The system which they describe is the Patriarchal, not the Papal system: the fivefold distribution of the Christian Church under the five great Sees of the Elder and the New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Of these the Pope of Rome is the first, but as primus inter pares (Canons XVII., XXI., Lat.).** The causes of clergy

* Archbishop Manning, 'Vatican Decrees,' pp. 12, 13. ** Labbe (ed. Paris, 1671), vol. x. pp. 1136, 1140.

on appeal are to be finally decided by the Patriarch in each Patriarchate (Canon XXVI., Lat.):* and it is declared that any General Council has authority to deal, but should deal' respectfully, with controversies of or touching the Roman Church itself (Canon XXI. Lat., XIII. Gr.).* ** This is one of the Councils which solemnly anathematises Pope Honorius as a heretic.

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

"Regarding the most blessed Pope Nicholas as an organ of the Holy Spirit, and likewise his most holy successor Adrian, we accordingly define and enact that all which they have set out and promulgated synodically, from time to time, as well for the defence and well-being of the Church of Constantinople, and of its Chief Priest and most holy Patriarch Ignatius, as likewise for the expulsion and condemnation of Photius, neophyte and intruder, be always observed and kept alike entire and untouched, under (or according to) the heads set forth (cum expositis capitulis).”+

There is not in the Canon anything relating to the Popes generally, but only to two particular Popes; nor any reference to what they did personally, but only to what they did synodically; nor to what they did synodically in all matters, but only in the controversy with Photius and the Eastern Bishops adhering to him. There is not one word relating to the Canon of 863, or to the Council which passed it: which was a Council

* Labbe (ed. Paris, 1671), vol. x. p. 1143.

**Ibid. 1140, 1375.

*** Ibid. p. 1127 Lat., p. 1367 Gr.; where the reader should be on his guard against the Latin version, and look to the Greek original.

See the original in Appendix G.

having nothing to do with the Photian controversy, but called for the purpose of supporting Pope Nicholas I. in what is commonly deemed his righteous policy with respect to the important case of the Divorce of Lothair.*

So that the demonstration of the Archbishop falls wholly to the ground: and down to this time my statement remains entire and unhurt. The matter contained in it will remain very important until the Council or the Pope shall amend its decree so as to bring it into conformity with the views of Dr. Newman, and provide a relief to the private conscience by opening in the great gate of Obedience a little wicket-door of exceptions for those who are minded to disobey.

Had the Decrees of 1870 been in force in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Roman Catholic peers could not have done what, until the reign of Charles II., they did; could not have made their way to the House of Lords by taking the oath of allegiance, despite the Pope's command. But that is not

all. The Pope ex cathedrâ had bidden the Roman Catholics of England in the eighteenth century, and in the sixteenth, and from the fourteenth, to believe in the Deposing power as an article of faith. But they rejected it: and no unquestioned law of their Church forbade them to reject it. Are they not forbidden now? The Pope in the sixteenth century bade the Roman Catholics of England assist the invasion of the Spanish Armada. They disobeyed him. The highest law of their Church left them free to disobey. Are they as free now? That they will assert this freedom

* Labbe, x. 766 sqq.

for themselves I do not question, nay, I sanguinely believe. From every standing-point, except that of Vaticanism, their title to it is perfect. With Vaticanism to supply their premiss, how are they to conclude? Dr. Newman says there are exceptions to this precept of obedience. But this is just what the Council has not said. The Church by the Council imposes Aye. The private conscience reserves to itself the title to say No. I must confess that in this apology there is to me a strong, undeniable, smack of Protestantism. To reconcile Dr. Newman's conclusion with the premisses of the Vatican will surely require all, if not more than all, "the vigilance, acuteness, and subtlety of the Schola Theologorum in its acutest member."*

The days of such proceedings, it is stated, are gone by: and I believe that, in regard to our country, they have passed away beyond recall. But that is not the present question. The present question is whether the right to perform such acts has been effectually disavowed. With this question I now proceed to deal.

VI. REVIVED CLAIMS OF THE PAPAL CHAIR.

1. The Deposing Power.

2. The Use of Force.

Ir will perhaps have been observed by others, as it has been by me, that from the charges against my account of the Syllabus are notably absent two of its most important and instructive heads. I accuse the

* Dr. Newman, p. 121.