Granada. Among the wrongs committed, we find the establishment of freedom of worship (cujusque catholici cultûs libertas sancita). These and all other acts against the Church, utterly unjust and impious, the Pope, by his Apostolic authority, declares to be wholly null and void in the future and in the past.1

No more, I hope, will be heard of the allegation that for two hundred years the Popes have not attempted to interfere with the Civil Powers of the world.

But if it be requisite to carry proof a step farther, this may readily be done. In his Petri Privilegium, vol. iii. p. 19, n., Archbishop Manning quotes the Bull In Cœnâ Domini as if it were still in force. Bishop Clifford, in his Pastoral Letter (p. 9), laid it down that though all human actions were moral actions, there were many of them which belonged to the temporal power, and with which the Pope could not interfere. Among these he mentioned the assessment and payment of taxes. But is it not the fact that this Bull excommunicates all who impose new taxes, not already provided for by law, without the Pope's leave?' and all who impose, without the said leave, special and express, any taxes, new or old, upon clergymen, churches, or monasteries ??

I may be told that Archbishop Manning is not a safe authority in these matters, that the Bull In Coena Domini was withdrawn after the assembling of the Council, and the constitution Apostolica Sedis3 substituted for it, in which this reference to taxes is omitted. But if this be so, is it not an astonishing fact, with reference to the spirit of Curialism, that down to the year 1870 these preposterous claims of aggression should have been upheld and from time to time proclaimed? Indeed the new Constitution itself, dated October, 1869, the latest specimen of reform and concession, without making any reservation whatever on behalf of the laws of the several countries, excommunicates (among others)—

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

3

2 O'Keeffe, Ultramontanism, pp. 215, 219. The reference is to sections v., xviii.

See Quirinus, p. 105; and see Constit. Apostolica Sedis in Friedberg's Acta et Decreta Conc. Vat. p. 77 (Freiburg, 1871).

E

1. All who imprison or prosecute (hostiliter insequentes) Archbishops or Bishops.

2. All who directly or indirectly interfere with any ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

3. All who lay hold upon or sequester goods of ecclesiastics held in right of their churches or benefices.

4. All who impede or deter the officers of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in the execution of their duties.

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

VIII. ON THE INTRINSIC NATURE AND CONDITIONS OF THE PAPAL INFALLIBILITY DECREED IN THE VATICAN COUNCIL.

I have now, I think, dealt sufficiently, though at greater length than I could have wished, with the two allegations, first, that the Decrees of 1870 made no difference in the liabilities of Roman Catholics with regard to their civil allegiance; secondly, that the rules of their Church allow them to pay an allegiance no more divided than that of other citizens, and that the claims of Ultramontanism, as against the Civil Power, are the very same with those which are advanced by Christian communions and persons generally.

I had an unfeigned anxiety to avoid all discussion of the Decree of Infallibility on its own, the religious ground; but as matters have gone so far, it may perhaps be allowed me now to say a few words upon the nature of the extraordinary tenet which the Bishops of one half the Christian world have now placed upon a level with the Apostles' Creed.

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

'Petri Privilegium, part ii. pp. 71-91.

of 1872, that the promulgation of the new Dogma, which had occurred since his last meeting with his clergy, was 'an event far more important than the great change in the balance of power which we have witnessed during the same interval.' The effect of it, described with literal rigor, was in the last resort to place the entire Christian religion in the breast of the Pope, and to suspend it on his will. This is a startling statement; but as it invites, so will it bear, examination. I put it forth not as rhetoric, sarcasm, or invective; but as fact, made good by history.

It is obvious to reply that, if the Christian religion is in the heart of the Pope, so the law of England is in the heart of the Legislature. The case of the Pope and the case of the Legislature are the same in this: that neither of them are subject to any limitation whatever, except such as they shall themselves respectively allow. Here the resemblance begins and ends. The nation is ruled by a Legislature, of which by far the most powerful branch is freely chosen, from time to time, by the community itself, by the greater part of the heads of families in the country; and all the proceedings of its Parliament are not only carried on in the face of day, but made known from day to day, almost from hour to hour, in every town and village, and almost in every household of the land. They are governed by rules framed to secure both ample time for consideration and the utmost freedom, or, it may be, even license of debate; and all that is said and done is subjected to an immediate, sharp, and incessant criticism; with the assurance on the part of the critics that they will have not only favor from their friends, but impunity from their enemies. Erase every one of these propositions, and replace it by its contradictory: you will then have a perfect description of the present Government of the Roman Church. The ancient principles of popular election and control, for which room was found in the Apostolic Church under its inspired teachers, and which still subsist in the Christian East, have, by the constant aggressions of Curialism, been in the main effaced, or, where not effaced, reduced to the last stage of practical inanition. We see before us the Pope, the Bishops, the priesthood, and the people. The priests are absolute over the people; the Bishops over both; the Pope over all. Each inferior

Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, 1872, p. 2.

may appeal against his superior; but he appeals to a tribunal which is secret, which is irresponsible, which he has no share, direct or indirect, in constituting, and no means, however remote, of controlling; and which, during all the long centuries of its existence, but especially dur ing the latest of them, has had for its cardinal rule this-that all its judgments should be given in the sense most calculated to build up priestly power as against the people, episcopal power as against the priests, Papal power as against all three. The mere utterances of the central See are laws; and they override at will all other laws; and if they concern faith or morals, or the discipline of the Church, they are entitled, from all persons without exception, singly or collectively, to an obedience without qualification. Over these utterances-in their preparation as well as after their issue-no man has lawful control. They may be the best, or the worst; the most deliberate, or the most precipitate; as no man can restrain, so no man has knowledge of, what is done or meditated. The prompters are unknown; the consultees are unknown; the procedure is unknown. Not that there are not officers, and rules; but the officers may at will be overridden or superseded; and the rules at will, and without notice, altered pro re natâ and annulled. To secure rights has been; and is, the aim of the Christian civilization; to destroy them, and to establish the resistless, domineering action of a purely central power, is the aim of the Roman policy. Too much and too long, in other times, was this its tendency; but what was its besetting sin has now become, as far as man can make it, by the crowning triumph of 1870, its undisguised, unchecked rule of action and law of life.

These words, harsh as they may seem, and strange as they must sound, are not the incoherent imaginings of adverse partisanship. The best and greatest of the children of the Roman Church have seen occasion to use the like, with cause less grave than that which now exists, and have pointed to the lust of dominion as the source of these enormous mischiefs:

'Di' oggimai, che la Chiesa di Roma

Per confondere in se due reggimenti
Cade nel fango, e se brutta, e la soma."

"The Church of Rome,

Mixing two governments that ill assort,

1 Dante, Purgatorio, xvi. 127–29.

Hath missed her footing, fallen into the mire,
And there herself, and burden, much defiled.'—Cary.

Without doubt there is an answer to all this.

Publicity, responsibility, restraint, and all the forms of warranty and safeguard, are wanted for a human institution, but are inapplicable to a 'divine teacher,' to an inspired Pontiff, to a 'living Christ.' The promises of God are sure, and fail not. His promise has been given, and Peter in his Successor shall never fail, never go astray. He needs neither check nor aid, as he will find them for himself. He is an exception to all the rules which determine human action; and his action in this matter is not really human, but divine. Having, then, the divine gift of inerrancy, why may he not be invested with the title, and assume the divine attribute, of omnipotence?

No one can deny that the answer is sufficient, if only it be true. But the weight of such a superstructure requires a firm, broad, well-ascertained foundation. If it can be shown to exist, so far so good. In the due use of the gift of reason with which our nature is endowed, we may look for a blessing from God; but the abandonment of reason is credulity, and the habit of credulity is presumption.

Is there, then, such a foundation disclosed to us by Dr. Newman' when he says 'the long history of the contest for and against the Pope's infallibility has been but a growing insight through centuries into the meaning of three texts.' First, 'Feed my sheep' (John xxi. 15-17); of which Archbishop Kenrick tells us that the very words are disputed, and the meaning forced. Next, 'Strengthen thy brethren;' which has no reference whatever to doctrine, but only, if its force extend beyond the immediate occasion, to government; and, finally, 'Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church;' when it is notorious that the large majority of the early expositors declare the rock to be not the person but the previous confession of Saint Peter; and where it is plain that, if his person be really meant, there is no distinction of ex cathedra and not ex cathedra, but the entire proceedings of his ministry are included without distinction.

'Dr. Newman, p. 110.

* Concio habendu at non habitu,' i. ii.; Friedrich, Documenta ad illustrandum, Conc. Vat. Abth. vol. i. pp. 191, 199. I leave it to those better entitled and better qualified to criticise the purely arbitrary construction attached to the words.