duals. There has, therefore, been no positive breach of communion, and the four faiths are actually, if not altogether lovingly, penned together in the same fold.

6

It seems indeed, from the present aspect of affairs, that there is not much chance that any one of these faiths will venture on declaring war to the knife' on its colleagues. The Church of Rome is perhaps not in a position which would render it desirable to diminish the numbers of its adherents in all countries. The spiritual sword therefore may perhaps be rather for show than for use; and the four faiths, notwithstanding some kicking and biting, may perhaps, on the whole, remain soberly housed together. It would be a pity to see so amiable an example of mutual forbearance and toleration, under somewhat trying circumstances, cease to exist for the general edification. Its continuance of course infers after a time a similar toleration for other differences beyond those of the Roman communion.

But this unity of communion between different beliefs goes to establish another point. It implies the admission that the differences between the four faiths do not affect the essence of Christianity: of course if they did, there would necessarily be a separation of communion. The Church of Rome would not tolerate in its communion doctrines which it was satisfied were contrary to the essence of the Catholic faith. The communion then of those who hold these four systems of belief amounts to a confession on their part that none of them is heretical.

Indeed we have seen

Ultramontanism highly sanctioned, Minimism highly sanctioned; Gallico-Ultramontanism highly sanctioned; and if the Gallicanism of Dr. Doyle, Dr. Lingard, Dr. Murray, Dr. Troy, Daniel O'Connell, the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy, and priesthood, and laity, till within a few years, is now denounced as heresy by the Ultramontanes pure, their own system is just as violently attacked by other classes of Roman Catholics. Nevertheless all remain bound up in the same communion.

From the fact of the communion of Ultramontanism with the other three beliefs a doubt presents itself irresistibly to the mind-whether its advocates really believe what they assert? The Papal ecclesiastic Manning, for instance, describes Gallicanism as 'the most dangerous error which had for two centuries harassed and disturbed the faithful;' affirms that it was a formal interruption of the universal belief of the Church;'2 that the contrary doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope' was a doctrine of Divine faith before the council;' that this doctrine lies at the root. . . . at the foundation of Christianity."4 Why, then, is it that Gallicanism is permitted to exist in the Roman communion, even after the Vatican definition? Nay, why are its leading doctrines taught and believed by the Papal prelates and clergy? And why have its main principles been taught by Pius IX. himself in the

Vatican decrees, as has been shown? Why, again, is the Gallican doctrine denying the temporal supremacy of the Pope, which Ultramontanes hold to be part of the apostolic depositum fidei, allowed to prevail so extensively, that Father Newman supposes that there are very few who are not in that error? Why do not the Ultramontane bishops attempt to clear their flocks of this heresy? Why do they permit their followers to deny-openly to deny— principles defined in the Bull Unam Sanctam? Those principles have been openly denied by Sir George Bowyer and Mr. Philipps De Lisle, although they have been announced again and again by Dr. Manning and Dr. Capel. Yet not a syllable do these prelates venture to say in condemnation of these denials of the Bull Unam Sanctam, and of the essential principles of the supremacy.

The impression left on the mind by this inconsistency of the Ultramontanes is that they have no firm trust in their own doctrines, notwithstanding the vehemence and dogmatism with which they announce them as the only foundations of Christianity. Did they really believe them to be so, how is it conceivable that they would remain in communion with those who deny them?

The true evidence of sincerity on the part of the Ultramontane prelate Manning and his colleagues, who are always preaching the temporal power of the Papacy and the deposing power, would be the enforcement of the Bull Unam Sanctam on their flocks. Let them impose

the articles of that Bull pure and undiluted, on every single Roman Catholic, by subscription or verbal confesşion; let them excommunicate all who will not receive those articles. They will then have proved their sincerity.

At present they tolerate Gallicanism, or the denial of the Papal authority. Nor is this the worst. They are in full communion with the Minimizers; that is to say, they are in all directions communicating with those who subvert or overthrow what they profess to believe to be the grand essentials of Christianity. What can be inferred from this? It can only be supposed either that they do not believe their own doctrines fundamental and essentialalthough they assert them to be so-or else that they regard it as consistent with Christian unity that the Church should comprise different parties who differ on essential and fundamental doctrines of the faith. And if they hold communion with Minimizers, Gallicans, and Gallico-Ultramontanes, although they so profoundly differ from them, why, in the name of consistency, do they not also communicate with Jansenists and Old Catholics, with Greeks and Protestants?

§ 8. EXAMINATION OF THE FOUR FAITHS
CONTINUED.

be

EVERY thinking man who calmly contemplates the existing divisions of tenet in the Church of Rome, will naturally ask himself, What is the cause of these diversities amongst men who profess themselves equally attached to their church, and equally convinced of their orthodoxy? Must there not be some principle at work which, if followed to its root, would account for these divisions? It may well to feel our way in different directions, for the purpose of discovering the true cause. Now the first observation that it occurs to make is, that all these disputes turn on the one single question of the Papal authority. They relate to nothing else. The dispute is entirely restricted to the prerogatives and limits of that authority, and its relations to the civil power. All are agreed that the Papal supremacy is of Divine institution, and that communion with the Papacy is necessary to salvation; but these points being conceded, there is thenceforth nothing but confusion and contradiction. Ultramontanism demonstrates with resistless logic that if you grant these principles, the Pope must be supreme over Christian