« НазадПродовжити »
by the Papal Legate (one of his own subjects) Saisette, Bishop of Pamiers, King Philip banished the Legate from the kingdom. The Vicar of Christ instantly sent him back again. The king was desirous of proceeding against him for treason; but he could not touch any one who was in orders. He ventured on the hopeless expedient of trying to induce the Pope to degrade Saisette. The Vicar of Christ's reply was a Bull again forbidding the payment of Aids, Subsidies, &c.; and another entitled Ausculta Fili, in which he thus addressed the King: 'God has established us over kings and kingdoms ; to pluck up, to destroy, to break, to scatter, to build, and to plant, in His name and by His doctrine. Do not let yourself be persuaded, therefore, that you have no superior; that you are not subject to the Head of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. He who thinks so is a madman; and whoever sustains such a notion is an infidel; and is separated from the flock of the Good Shepherd.' It was by this Bull that the Pontiff summoned the Council which drew up the Bull Unam Sanctam.
England also obtained a share in the Pontiff's attentions. It has been already seen that King Edward was commanded, under penalty of excommunication, to abstain from war against France. In 1298 the Pontiff interfered in the war between England and Scotland; and taking part with the Scots, forbad King Edward to make war upon them on the ground that the kingdom of Scotland belonged from ancient times to the Papacy; and not to England. He commanded the Archbishop of Canterbury accordingly to admonish Edward I. A little later the Vicar of Christ demanded tribute from the King of England; to which the King and Parliament irreligiously replied, stating that this kingdom was not bound to pay tribute to the Apostolical See.
This slight sketch will furnish some notion of the position in which the Sovereigns of Europe were placed when Ultramontanism was in that ascendancy which it seeks to resume.
It may enable us to understand the actual working of a system which the Papacy, and its agents, MM. Manning, Capel, Patterson, Veuillot, &c., are endeavouring to make once more predominant.
I am not about to dwell on the consequences which might be produced by attempts to re-establish the ascendancy of Ultramontanism. I am merely considering what effects it has produced; and that not so much for the purpose of pointing out their nature, as for that of explaining distinctly the principles of the system. These principles are expounded with the most admirable clearness in the Bull Unam Sanctam above referred to; as they have also been by the illustrious author of the · Expostulation.' They are entirely homogeneous, harmonious, and consistent throughout; and Roman Catholic controversialists really need not be so much ashamed of them as they are, or struggle so hard to evade them. They comprise a clear and logical theory. It is only to be hoped that Dr. Manning may carry out his intention, and preach them without
He is satisfied that his religion will benefit by so doing. We wish him all success. Far be it from me to add in any way to the embarrassment of this much-tried ecclesiastic by urging further upon him the delicate question as to the duty of Roman Catholics in the event of the deposal of Queen Victoria by the Vicar of Christ.' There are some questions that really are so clear that it is quite superfluous to put them. We do not ask whether the sun will rise to-morrow. As to the course that would be pursued by any genuine Ultramontane in such an event, ça va sans dire.
may be all very well at this moment to invent ingenious theological distinctions to save Queen Victoria from the Pope's jurisdiction ;' but if the Pope had actually excommunicated and deposed her Majesty, Dr. Manning would be the first to remember, in accordance with the Pope's own letter to the Emperor William, that all baptized persons, even those baptized by heretics, are members of the Catholic Church,' ? and may be cited into judgment, punished, and condemned by anathema.'3
It is fortunate that the civil allegiance of English Ultramontanes is not likely to be put to so terrible a test, since their numerical weakness will probably act as a restraint somewhat more powerful than a sliding theological distinction.
It here becomes necessary to notice the assertions of the Roman Catholic controversialists, who in reply to the
Manning, The Vatican Decrees, &c., p. 88, 89.
allegation of the "Expostulation and of the European Powers, that the Vatican Decrees have made important alterations in the civil allegiance of their co-religionists, declare that they have not altered that allegiance in the slightest degree, and in proof point to the decrees themselves; and remark with triumph, 'civil allegiance is not even mentioned in those decrees.' i Now all this
may plausible enough; but it will not bear examination.
To understand the case, we must remember that Ultramontanism bears directly on civil allegiance. Its leading features are political, and relate exactly to the allegiance which every individual bears to the Pope and to the civil power respectively. Now as long as Ultramontanism was a mere theory, a disputable question, a matter of opinion, it could not exert a despotic influence over the whole Roman Catholic body; but if it is converted into a belief which men are bound to hold and to act on if they hope to be saved, it becomes completely transformed, and exercises at once a tremendous influence over the entire Roman Catholic community. There is nothing of which man would not be capable under such a pressure.
This then is the state of the case. A system vitally affecting civil allegiance has, by the Vatican Decrees, been raised from the class of opinions to the class of dogmas. Gallicanism, the counter opinion, which essentially consisted in the defence of the claims of civil allegiance as
Capel, Reply to Gladstone, p. 4; Manning, Vatican Decrees, 3, 5, 23, 27, 30, &c.; and many others.
indefeasible, has been struck down; and Ultramontanism has become for the first time the formal Roman Catholic faith. Does this make no difference to the question of civil allegiance? It makes all the difference in the world. It converts what was exceedingly dangerous to civil government already into what is indefinitely more dangerous. It places the spiritual and temporal allegiance of two hundred millions of men at the Pope's disposal.
No one has more thoroughly (though more unintentionally) demonstrated this than Dr. Manning himself. In enumerating the various published reasons which rendered the definition of Infallibility in the Vatican Council a matter of necessity, he propounds amongst them the following: That “the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ, which is true, has been denied '--that the denial has generated extensive doubt of this doctrine, which lies at the root of the immemorial and universal practice of the Church, and therefore at the root of Christianity in the world'—that the denial has grown into a formal and public error'--that it amounts to a patent, active, and organised opposition to the rights of the holy see—that it has “gravely enfeebled the doctrinal authority of the Church in the minds of a certain number of the faithful'—that such divisions tend to paralyse the action of truth upon the minds of the faithful,' and by giving a false appearance of division and doubt among Catholics, upon the minds of Protestants'—that “if defined,' Infallibility would become a bond of unity among the faithful '—that it is