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

1

be pursued by any genuine Ultramontane in such an event, ça va sans dire. It 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

2

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.

2 Concil. Trident., sessio vii. canon iv.

8 Catechismus Concil. Trident., pars i. c. ix. qu. 8.

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.'1 Now all this may be 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

1 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

6

needed to place the Pontifical Acts during the last 300 years beyond cavil or question'-that it is needed to exclude from the minds of pastors and faithful the political influences which have generated Gallicanism, Imperialism, Regalism, and Nationalism, the perennial sources of error, contention, and schism.''

Now when we consider this language, it will be seen at once what the declaration on infallibility was really intended to accomplish. It was designed for the purpose of excluding all doubt, all hesitation, all division of opinion regarding the Papal powers. It was for the purpose of binding together the whole Roman Catholic Church, consisting of 200,000,000 of people, in one belief on the subject. It was for the purpose of extirpating political influences, Gallicanism, Imperialism, Regalism, Nationalism, and making Ultramontanism the sole doctrine. and belief of Roman Catholics.

6

Now what were the doctrines which were thus to be extirpated by the definition of Papal Infallibility? 'Gallicanism,' which asserted the indefeasible duty of civil allegiance in opposition to any Papal commands; 'Imperialism' and Regalism,' which justified kings for laying restraints upon the Papacy in defence of the temporal rights of their crowns; Nationalism,' which asserted the rights of particular nations against the absorbing claims of the Papacy. In other words, this definition was in

6

1 Manning, The Vatican Decrees, &c., p. 157–160.

tended to beat down, and level to the ground, and annihilate every defence, and contrivance, and principle by which the temporal powers or particular nations could hope to save themselves from being reduced to the one common level of prostrate obedience to the Papal will, in temporal matters as well as spiritual.

After this exposition of the real purpose and object of the Vatican decrees, made by their most zealous defender, and the head of the Roman Catholics in this country, I think the question is tolerably well cleared up. But if there could be any remaining doubt or question as to the real effect of the Vatican decree on Infallibility, it would be set instantly at rest by one single consideration.

Those who accept the definition of the infallibility of Papal decrees ex cathedra, are that moment bound to acknowledge the infallibility of the Bull Unam sanctam. That Bull, as we have seen, renders all civil allegiance dependent on the Papal will, and subjects temporal princes and nations to it as to the Deity himself.

The Vatican decree, therefore, has uprooted all independent claims of kings on the allegiance of their people, and has constituted the Pope a spiritual and temporal autocrat by Divine institution.

Has, then, the Vatican decree made no alteration in civil allegiance?

Before I close this part of the subject, let me notice for a moment the appeal of the Ultramontanes to the evidence for their loyalty to civil governments, and their