§ 3. THE ULTRAMONTANE FAITH.

ULTRAMONTANISM is, it must be confessed, not in the best possible odour in the world at present. It is making immense struggles for ascendancy, but somehow even Roman Catholic governments are afraid of it. Indeed, it touches them more closely than any one else. They are privileged to be the objects of its devouring solicitude and care. It is a remarkable fact that this class of principles is invariably and inevitably connected with politics. It cannot, like other religions, escape into the spiritual sphere of faith, morals, worship, discipline, sacraments. It at every turn finds itself compelled to interfere with the actions of sovereigns, and the laws of nations. It is inevitably political.

Princes cannot be expected to enter into refined theological questions as to whether the power claimed over them by the Papacy is spiritual, or whether it is temporal; or whether it is directly temporal, or indirectly temporal. All they know and feel is, that a potentate residing at Rome claims (and with the support of a formidable party) to be possessed, by Divine right, of the power of directing

them, controlling them, checking them, commanding them, ordering them about, summoning them for judgment, condemning them, deposing them, forbidding their subjects to obey them, reversing their laws, releasing their subjects from allegiance to them, delivering them over to the hand of the murderer, giving away their dominions, and proclaiming crusades against them. It is a matter of complete indifference to princes and nations whether these claims are made under one set of theological principles or another. It is sufficient that they are put forward as Divine, and that there are vast multitudes of people who believe them to be so. Most Roman Catholic powers, since the year 1050, have felt themselves obliged to interfere for the purpose of checking the spread of this system. Prince Bismark, in the present generation, is merely acting on the same general rule of prevention which in the last century was adopted by the German Emperors, the Kings of France and Portugal, and other Roman Catholic powers, and with much success. The monarchs and states of Europe had for centuries previously been endeavouring to put restraints upon this Ultramontane system. Five hundred years since Edward III. was compelled to restrain it in England, by the Statute of Premunire, still in force, though no longer put in execution. The Expostulation,' it must be remembered, is exclusively directed against Ultramontanism—not against Romanism in general. It is solely and absolutely restricted to Ultramontanism. Whoever knows anything of history will at once recognise

6

the complete fidelity of the account which it gives of the Ultramontane theology. The authorities, indeed, on which it rests speak for themselves, and cannot be explained away by any amount of dexterity. Dr. Manning, in his reply, merely repeats and defends all those doctrines of Ultramontanism which are the most dangerous to civil society. Dr. Newman, on the other hand, endeavours to get rid of them practically by the Minimizing system, which demands separate notice. Yet even he, as well as Dr. Manning, though carping at details, are reluctant witnesses to the general and substantial accuracy of the Expostulation.' Their statements and arguments throughout go to confirm it.

6

These writers in their voluminous replies have introduced such masses of details that the subject becomes confused, and attention is withdrawn from the real question-namely, the essential character of Ultramontanism. Let us endeavour to resume the thread of the argument, and again state, on unquestionable authority, what Ultramontanism really is.

Neglecting therefore, for the moment, the expositions which individual Roman controversialists make to us of the Papal position and claims, we will go at once to the fountain head, as the Expostulation' has already done, and examine authoritative Papal statements.

6

The document now to be referred to is one which Dr. Manning and all Ultramontanes hold to be infallible.

6

It

is the Papal definition Ex Cathedra' made by Boni

face VIII., in 1302, in the Bull Unam Sanctam. It is necessary to remember the immediate cause of this Definition of Faith. Philip the Fair of France and Edward I. of England, being engaged in war relating to their respective temporal rights, Boniface VIII. holding it to be his divine office to restrain Christian nations from wars about their own concerns, and to keep their military force in hand to be disposed of at his sovereign pleasure for the extirpation of infidels, heretics, and those who were disobedient to the Holy See,' enjoined these monarchs to suspend hostilities on pain of anathema. They, however, had the audacity to reply that 'in temporal matters they acknowledged no superior but God.' A doctrine so scandalous having been especially upheld and acted on by King Philip, the Vicar of Christ, who had previously reminded him of the fact that three kings of France, his predecessors, had been deposed by the Popes, convened a synod at Rome in 1302, to which he summoned the French bishops, for the purpose of taking into consideration the king's most wicked conduct. At this synod, which was held in the Pope's presence, a definition or creed was drawn up which was duly published Ex Cathedra,' and which declared the true faith in condemnation of the error and insanity' of Philip and Edward in claiming temporal independence. The definition thus made runs as follows, omitting proofs and illustrations which are rejected by Roman Catholic theologians as not matter of

faith; and also adding numerals to distinguish the several propositions.

1. We are compelled by the obligation of faith to believe and hold, that there is one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and we accordingly firmly believe and simply confess it.

2. Out of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. 3. Therefore there is one body, and one head of the one and only Church, that is to say Christ, and the Vicar of Christ, Peter, and Peter's successor; not two heads, as if it were some monster. Whether, therefore, the Greeks or any others (Kings Philip, Edward, &c.) say, that they are not committed to the charge of Peter and his successors, they must necessarily confess that they are not of the flock of Christ.

4. We are instructed by the words of the Gospel that in this Church, and in its power, are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. Certainly, he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter gives ill heed to the word of the Lord.... Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, i.e. the spiritual and the material sword; but the one is to be exercised for the Church; the other by the Church. The one is the Priest's (Pope's); the other is in the hands of kings and warriors; but is at the nod and permission of the Priest (Pope).

5. One sword is necessarily subject to the other; and the temporal authority is subject to the spiritual.

6. According to the testimony of truth; the spiritual power has to institute the temporal; and to judge it, if it be not good.

7. Therefore, if the earthly power deviates (from what is good), it is to be judged by the spiritual power.

8. If a minor spiritual power deviates, it is to be judged by its superior; but if the supreme power (Papal) deviates, it may be judged by God alone, but not by man.

9. This (supreme) authority, though given to man and exercised by man, is not human, but Divine, given orally by God to Peter; as well to himself, as to his successors in him.

10. Whosoever, therefore (kings included), resists this power, thus

с