this document is addressed by the Pope through Cardinal Antonelli to all the Bishops of the Christian (Papal) world, therefore in his capacity as universal Teacher.

The reasons advanced by Bishop Fessler in the opposite sense appear to be very weak. When the Pope (by conversion of the 23rd Proposition) declares that preceding pontiffs have not exceeded the limits of their power, and have not usurped the rights of princes, Bishop Fessler replies that we are here dealing only with facts of history, not touching faith or morals, so that there is no subjectmatter for a dogmatic definition.* But the depositions of sovereigns were often founded on such considerations; as when Gregory VII., in A.D. 1079, charged upon Henry IV. many capital crimes, and as when Innocent III. deposed Raymond of Toulouse for (among other reasons) not proceeding satisfactorily with the extirpation of the Albigenses. The Christian creed itself is chiefly composed of matters of fact set forth as articles of belief. And apart from this, he who asserts, that the acts of Popes did not go beyond their rights, thereby avers his belief in the claims of right which those acts of deposition involved.

Fessler's other objection is, that the form of the Syllabus does not set forth the intention of the Pope.§ But he appears to have overlooked the perfectly explicit covering letter of Antonelli, which in the Pope's name transmits the Syllabus, in order that the whole body of Latin Bishops might have before their eyes those errors and false doctrines of the age which the Pope had proscribed. Nor does Fessler venture to assert, that the Syllabus is without * Fessler, 'Vraie et fausse Infaillibilité des Papes,' French transl., p. 89.

† Greenwood, 'Cathedra Petri,' iv. 420. ‡ Ibid. v. 546.

§ Fessler, p. 182.

D

dogmatic authority. He only says many theologians have doubts upon the question whether it be ex cathedrâ: theological science will hereafter have to examine and decide the matter:* in the meantime every Roman Catholic is bound to submit to and obey it. Such is the low or moderate doctrine concerning the Syllabus. Thus its dogmatic authority is probable: its title to universal obedience is absolute, while among its assertions is that the Church has the right to employ force, and that the Popes have not exceeded their powers or invaded the rights of princes.

Now, when I turn to the seductive pages of Dr. Newman, I find myself to be breathing another air, and discussing, it would seem, some other Syllabus. If the Pope were the author of it, he would accept it. But he is not,§ and no one knows who is. Therefore it has no dogmatic force. It is an index to a set of dogmatic Bulls and Allocutions, but it is no more dogmatic itself than any other index, or table of contents. Its value lies in its references, and from them alone can we learn its meaning.

If we had Dr. Newman for Pope, we should be tolerably safe, so merciful and genial would be his rule. But when Dr. Newman, not being Pope, contradicts and nullifies what the Pope declares, whatever we may wish, we cannot renounce the use of our eyes. Fessler, who writes, as Dr. Newman truly says, to curb exaggerations,** and who is approved by the Pope, declarest that every subject of the Pope, and thus that Dr. Newman, is bound to obey the Syllabus, because it is from the Pope and of the Pope. "Before the Council of the Vatican, every Catholic was

* Fessler, pp. 8, 132, 134.

Newman, p. 20.

Ibid. p. 81.

** Ibid. P. 81.

† Ibid. p. 8.

§ Ibid. p. 79. ¶ Ibid. p. 8.

tt Fessler, p. 8 (Fr. trans.).

bound to submit to and obey the Syllabus: the Council of the Vatican has made no difference in that obligation of conscience." He questions its title, indeed, to be held as ex cathedrâ, and this is his main contention against Schulte; but he nowhere denies its infallibility, and he distinctly includes it in the range of Christian obedience.

Next, Dr. Newman lays it down that the words of the Syllabus are of no force in themselves, except as far as they correspond with the terms of the briefs to which references are given, and which he admits to be binding. But here Dr. Newman is in flat contradiction to the official letter of Cardinal Antonelli, who states that the Syllabus has been framed, and is sent to the Bishops, by command of the Pope, inasmuch as it is likely that they have by no means all seen the prior instruments, and in order that they may know from the Syllabus itself what it is that has been condemned. Thus then it will be seen that the Syllabus has been authoritatively substituted for the original documents as a guide to the Bishops. And if, as Dr. Newman says, and as I think in some cases is the fact, the propositions of the Syllabus widen the propositions of those documents, it is the wider and not the narrower form that binds, unless Dr. Newman is more in the confidence of Rome than the Secretary of the Vatican Council, and than the regular minister of the Pope.

Again, I am reminded by the Dublin Review,' a favoured organ of Roman opinions, that utterances ex cathedra* are not the only form in which Infallibility can speak and that the Syllabus, whether ex cathedrâ or not, since it has been uttered by the Pope, and accepted by the Church diffused, that is to say, by the Bishops diffused, is undoubtedly infallible. This would seem to be the * Dublin Review,' Jan. 1875, pp. 177, 310.

opinion of Bishop Ullathorne. But what is conclusive as to practical effect upon the whole case is this-that while not one among the Roman apologists admits that the Syllabus is or may be erroneous, the obligation to obey it is asserted on all hands, and is founded on the language of an infallible Vatican Decree.

I have been content to argue the case of the Syllabus upon the supposition that, in relation to this country at least, its declarations were purely abstract. The readers, however, of Macmillan's Magazine' for February may perceive that even now we are not without a sample of its fruits in a matrimonial case, of which particulars were long ago given in the 'Times' newspaper, and which may possibly again become the object of public notice.

It is therefore absolutely superfluous to follow Dr. Newman through his references to the Briefs and Allocutions marginally noted. The Syllabus is part of that series of acts to which the dogmatisations of 1854 and 1870 also belong; and it bridges over the interval between them. It generalises, and advisedly enlarges, a number of particular condemnations; and, addressing them to all the Bishops, brings the whole of the Latin obedience within its net. The fish, when it is inclosed and beached, may struggle for a while: but it dies, while the fisherman lives, carries it to market, and quietly puts the price into his till. The result then is:

1. I abide by my account of the contents of the Syllabus.

2. I have understated, not overstated, its authority. 3. It may be ex cathedrâ; it seems to have the infalli bility of dogma: it unquestionably demands, and is entitled (in the code of Vaticanism) to demand, obedience.

• Bishop Ullathorne, Expost. Unravelled,' p. 66.

III. THE VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

Breach with History, No. 1.

LIKE the chieftains of the heroic time, Archbishop Manning takes his place with promptitude, and operates in front of the force he leads.

Upon the first appearance of my tract, he instantly gave utterance to the following propositions; nor has he since receded from them:

1. That the Infallibility of the Pope was a doctrine of Divine Faith before the Council of the Vatican was held.

2. That the Vatican Decrees have in no jot or tittle changed either the obligations or the conditions of civil allegiance.

3. That the civil allegiance of Roman Catholics is as undivided as that of other Christians, and neither more nor less limited.

4. That the claim of the Roman Church against obedience to the civil power in certain cases is the same as that made by other religious communions in this country.

These four propositions may be treated as two. The first is so allied with the second, and the third with the fourth, that the two members of each pair respectively must stand or fall together. I can make no objection to the manner in which they raise the question. I shall leave it to others, whom it may more concern, to treat that portion of his work in which, passing by matters that more nearly touched his argument, he has entered at large on the controversy between Rome and the German Empire; nor shall I now discuss his compendium of Italian