by open announcement, at which, as recently in Troy, N. Y., they defend their tenets and blind their ignorant adherents. They are founding their educational institutions all over the land, and are marshalling into their lines their subordinated orders-just those which Prussia has been obliged to interfere with as Jesuit in all but name. For it matters little whether they are called 'Christian Brothers,' or 'Charitable Sisters of the poor Child Jesus,' or Paulists, or Redemptionists, their aim is all the same, namely, to thrust their adherents into every educational avenue which they can command; and these, thanks to the liberty which we accord to all comers! are many and various. And the sooner we learn that these soldiers of the Church are here for battle, and burnish our own weapons to meet them, the better for us and our country.

ART. V.-MR. GLADSTONE AND THE DEFENDERS

OF VATICANISM.

The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: A Political Expostulation. By the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil Allegiance. By HENRY EDWARD, Archbishop of Westminster.

A Letter addressed to his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, on the occasion of Mr Gladstone's recent Expostulation. By JOHN H. NEWMAN, D.D.

A Reply to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone's Political Expostulation. By the Right Rev. MONSIGNOR CAPEL, D.D.

Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation Unravelled. By Bishop ULLATHORNE.

Expostulation in Extremis. By the Right Hon. Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, M.P. Vaticanism: An Answer to Replies and Reproofs. By the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

The True and False Infallibility of the Popes. By Dr. JOSEPH FESSLER.

IN the Contemporary Review for October, 1874, an article appeared on Ritualism from the pen of Mr. Gladstone. mild exposition and defence, and commanded wide-spread attention and interest; though it did not touch the questions of doctrine which are at the heart of the ritualistic movement, and from which its real significance is derived. In considering the point as to whether it was likely or otherwise that the Ritualistic party were engaged in a hopeless effort to Romanise this country, Mr. Gladstone stated that, At no time since the bloody reign of Mary has such a scheme been possible. But if it had been possible in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, it would still have become impossible in the nineteenth; when Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem, a policy of violence and

change in faith; when she has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fondly thought to have disused; when no one can become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another; and when she has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history.' These statements disturbed the equanimity of distinguished Roman Catholics. Private remonstrances were addressed to Mr. Gladstone, and further explanation was felt to be necessary. This further explanation is supplied in the Political Expostulation.' Concerning the four propositions contained in the objectionable paragraph, the following points are raised for consideration :-Are they true? If true, are they material? And, if both true and material, was it a prudent and proper thing for Mr. Gladstone to invite attention to them? The first proposition, that Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem a policy of violence and change in faith, and the fourth that she has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history, are very briefly discussed as belonging rather to the domain of theology than that of politics. The first of these propositions, if it be anything at all, is a statement of fact, and admits of verification. Rome has claimed possession of an unchanged faith. From the days of Jesus Christ until now, without any interruption of continuity or departure from identity, Roman theologians have argued their Church has held the Christian faith-the faith of Christ as taught by himself and his apostles. Gradually, however, there has come to the front the assertion of a living authority, in the person of the Pope, whose utterances determine the doctrine of the Church, and this assertion has been authoritatively formulated in the Vatican decrees. Continuity of doctrine recedes into the back-ground-the utterance of the Pope settles questions of dogma. Roman Catholic theologians and canonists have a method, no doubt, by which they harmonise these, to us, apparently incompatible positions. The utterance of the Pope will always be in harmony with the faith of the Church. He will not promulgate any unchristian or anti-christian doctrine. By the divine assistance, vouchsafed to him as the supreme teacher of the Church, he will be kept from doing this. But what authority have we for these statements? Simply the Pope's. He determines that his teaching is in harmony with the deposit of faith-that it is neither unchristian nor anti-christian. It is of no use appealing to the past and challenging the verdict of history. Continuity of faith is of no moment. It is the utterance of the Pope, and that alone, that is now of importance in the settlement of all questions of doctrine. And this utterance cannot be submitted to any test, nor required to vindicate itself, either at the bar of reason or conscience. It must simply be accepted, and no one can deviate from it

Mr. Gladstone notes two very

without loss of faith and salvation. important differences that emerge here. The Church is no longer principally a witness to facts, nor merely an expounder of doctrine through the whole of her Teaching Authority, but, in the person of the Pope, an authoritative and unerring judge, if not a revealer of doctrine. The dogmatic formulations and decisions of the Church are not any longer subject to a challenge and appeal to history, for the voice of history cannot contend with the absolute prerogative given to the Pope by the Vatican decrees. Now here, unless history is false, there is a change in that which has boasted it was always the same, and, unless reason be deceptive, there is a dangerous usurpation of prerogative and power. The fourth proposition, that Rome has repudiated equally modern thought and ancient history, records an opinion that may or may not be well founded. The Pope's speeches, allocutions, and encyclicals show that the relation in which he stands to modern thought, and the enlargement of the necessary creed of Christendom, breaks with the faith of ancient times. Dr. Newman, in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, in relation to this fourth proposition, seeks to interpret it with exclusive reference to the attitude of the ancient Church towards the State, chiefly before the days of State recognition began, as if the breach with ancient history to which Mr. Gladstone refers had taken place here. This is an ingenious method of introducing another and a different issue and diverting attention from the real question. Mr. Gladstone is careful to note that this fourth proposition comprehends a question of divinity rather than politics, for the breach to which he refers has been made by enlarging the necessary creed of Christendom. Beliefs are now necessary to salvation that before the Vatican Council were not held to be necessary. They were, at least, open questions, and though some maintained them, others rejected them. But this is allowable no longer; their acceptance is a condition of salvation, and hence that circle of faith which it is necessary to receive in order to be saved has been enlarged, and it is this enlargement that, in the opinion of Mr. Gladstone, constitutes a repudiation of ancient history. It is a breach with the ages past in relation to dogma to which this fourth proposition refers, and Dr. Newman's references to the action of the ancient Church in relation to the State, while it creates a convenient obscurity through which he is able to pass away from the point in hand, and thus serves his purpose, can hardly be considered as adding to the strength of his argument.

Mr. Gladstone does, indeed, maintain that the Vatican decrees have introduced a change that theoretically affects the obligations and conditions of civil allegance, whatever may be the practical result. Roman Catholics may be loyal, and, as Mr. Gladstone puts it, undoubtedly will be; but considering the case from the

Protestant stand-point, it appears as if this can only happen under certain circumstances, by contradicting in practice what is accepted in theory. Cardinal Manning* undertakes to dispose of this accusation, and show that the Vatican Council has not altered anything It has neither changed, not 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 beginning.' One would like to know to what extent the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, as promulgated in the dogmatic constitutions of the Vatican Council, have been believed and practised from the beginning. And then it would be interesting to know the date of the beginning to which the Cardinal refers. That for

a considerable period there has been a party in the Roman Church which has maintained the infallibility of the Pope, no one disputes; and that for a longer period there has been a supremacy claimed will also be readily conceded. But these admissions will not serve the purpose of the defenders of Vaticanism. For if there has been a party in the Papal Church advocating the infallibility, there have been parties opposed to it; and if there has been supremacy claimed by the Pope and granted by the Romish community, this supremacy has been by a large and influential portion of that community conditioned by the authority of a general Council; and not till 1870 was the supremacy of the Pope raised beyond all conditions by conciliar decree. It is very convenient to vaguely refer to the faith and practice of Romanists, as if the whole of that community had accepted supremacy and infallibility, as now promulgated; and beginning is a word admirable for its indefiniteness, when not accompanied with date. In support of his affirmation concerning the faith and practice of Rome, the Archbishop refers to the declaration of a Council, held at Rome in 863, respecting the authority of Pope Nicholas I., which he says shows an iron gripe not less formidable than the third chapter of the Vatican constitution. And this Canon of the Roman Council-which he acknowledges was only a local assembly-he says was recognised in the eighth General Council, held at Constantinople in 869. Thus for the papal supremacy, as now formulated, he produces a conciliar decree more than ten centuries old. If this be correct, the Cardinal gains a point in his favour. But Mr. Gladstone, in his second pamphlet, shows that what Dr. Manning states as certain is matter of great uncertainty. Ecclesiastical historians mention no such recognition, and the records of the Council are as reticent respecting it as the historians. This Council, though called Ecumenical, can hardly deserve the name, for only a portion of the eastern bishops attended it, and this portion consisting of those who

6

The head of the Roman hierarchy in England has been raised to the rank of a Prince of the Church.

favoured Rome and Constantinople in the conflict of the ninth century. It would not have been surprising, considering its character and the auspices under which it met, had the decrees of this assembly afforded some countenance to Papal claims. But the hierarchy of that date, described in the records of the Council, is not the Papal, but the Patriarchal. Christendom was ruled from five centres-Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Of these Patriarchates, Rome was regarded as chief, but its bishop was not the ecclesiastical superior of the others, but only the first among equals. It is a primacy of honour and not of power that the canons of this Council recognise. Rome is not set forth as possessing an appellate jurisdiction for all Christendom, but each Patriarchate is said to contain within itself the final court of appeal, beyond which cases cannot be taken. And this same assembly with conciliar authority solemnly anathematises one of the Popes as a heretic. Yet to this Council Dr. Manning appeals in support of Papal supremacy as recently declared; and privately, it seems, informed Mr. Gladstone that it was to the second canon he referred, in claiming the support of this assembly. The words of the canon upon which he relies are, 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).' These are the words upon which reliance is placed, and it requires no extraordinary discernment to perceive that there is no support here to Papal supremacy as recently propounded. Two particular popes are mentioned as having done some particular thing Synodically, and to these popes and their Synodical action in relation to Photius the canon relates. This particular declaration cannot be broadened into a universal, which is what the Cardinal attempts when he claims the authority of this ecclesiastical assembly on behalf of recent Papal pretensions. Evidently, at the time of this council, Romish supremacy was not interpreted as it is now. Some four centures earlier Leo I. expresses his joy that the Council of Chalcedon had condemned the Nestorian and Eutychian errors, thus confirming the doctrines he had asserted, and practically allows that any judgment, save that of a universal council, may be re-examined and amended. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the question of supremacy as between Pope and Council was keenly contested. The Synod of Constance, in 1415, asserted its supremacy over the Pope, and this assertion