« НазадПродовжити »
When he hints that Ultramontane teaching had been carried so far that principles were close upon snapping," it suggests what Mr. Welby Pugin has more openly described as “the harsh and narrow spirit, which by its exaggerations is not only provoking a civil strife, but driving men out of the Church.'?
No open breach has as yet occurred, or perhaps is likely to occur. The differences of belief, however, which have manifested themselves amongst Roman Catholics in the course of the 'Expostulation' discussion are broadly marked, although at present their whole system of theology appears to be in a state of confused transition; a mixture of different principles, which presents to the bystander a strange aspect, and touches closely on the question of Catholic unity and consistency.
At present we have before us the spectacle of several contending doctrines in the Roman Communion, viz., 1. The pure Ultramontane, defended by Manning, Patterson, Capel, and the Jesuits, &c.; 2. The Minimizing Ultramontane, advocated by Newman, Bishop Fessler, Father O'Reilly, Capel, &c.; 3. The Gallican, or old English Roman Catholic, represented now by Lords Acton, Camoys, and others, and formerly by Dr. Doyle and the Irish and English hierarchies from 1790 to 1826, and received by Roman Catholics generally till within a few years ; 4. The
| Newman, Letter, fc., p. 4.
2 Church and State, by A. W. Pugin, p. 6. The italics are not Mr. Pugin's.
Gallico-Ultramontane, a transition doctrine held by most of the Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and laity. On each of these different doctrines it is proposed to offer some brief remarks; and subsequently to consider them collectively.
§ 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 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.
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.
The document now to be referred to is one which Dr. Manning and all Ultramontanes hold to be infallible. It is the Papal definition "Ex Cathedra' made by Boni