Gallicanism

revived.

by omission, or rather by want of foresight. I said, 'Gallicanism is dead, because it made itself the servant of the State; you have now only to inter it.' I think I then spoke the truth. It was dead, and completely dead. How, then, has it risen again? I do not hesitate to reply, that it is in consequence of the lavish encouragement given, under the Pontificate of Pius IX., to exaggerated doctrines, outraging the good sense, as well as the honour of the human race-doctrines, of which not even the coming shadow was perceptible under the Parliamentary monarchy. There are wanting, then, to that speech, as to the one I made in the National Assembly on the Roman expedition, essential reservations against spiritual despotism, and against absolute monarchy, which I have detested in the State, and which does not inspire me with less repugnance in the Church. But, in 1847, what could give rise to a suspicion that the liberal Pontificate of Pius IX., acclaimed by all the Liberals of the two worlds, would become the Pontificate represented and personified by the Univers and the Civilta? In the midst of the unanimous cries then uttered by the clergy in favour of liberty as in Belgium, of liberty in everything and for all, how could we foresee, as possible, the incredible wheelabout of almost all that same clergy in 1852— the enthusiasm of most of the Ultramontane doctors for the revival of Cæsarism? The harangues of Monseigneur Parisis, MM. Parisis the charges of Monseigneur de Salinis, and especially the permanent triumph of those lay theologians of absolutism, who began by squandering all our liberties, all our principles, all our former ideas, before Napoleon III., and afterwards immolated justice and truth, reason and history, in one great holocaust to the idol they raised up for themselves at the Vatican? If that word, idol, seems to you too strong, please to lay the blame on what Monseigneur Sibour, Archbishop of Paris, wrote to me on the 10th of September, 1853:-'The new Ultramontane Sibour on school leads us to a double idolatry-the idolatry of the temporal Idolatry. power, and of the spiritual power. When you formerly, like ourselves, M. le Comte, made loud professions of Ultramontanism, you did not understand things thus. We defended the independence of the spiritual power against the pretensions and encroachments of the temporal power, but we respected the con

& de Salinis.

Power and
Power.

Bishop of
Orleans.

We

stitution of the State, and the constitution of the Church.
did not do away with all intermediate power, all hierarchy, all
reasonable discussion, all legitimate resistance, all individuality,
all spontaneity. The Pope and the Emperor were not, one the
whole Church, and the other the whole State. Doubtless there
are times when the Pope may set himself above all the rules which
are only for ordinary times, and when his power is as extensive
as the necessities of the Church. The old Ultramontanes kept
this in mind, but they did not make a rule of the exception. The
new Ultramontanes have pushed everything to extremes, and
have abounded in hostile arguments against all liberties—those
of the State as well as those of the Church-against the serious
religious interests at the present time, and especially at a future day.
One might be content with despising them, but when one has a
presentiment of the evils, they are preparing for us, it is difficult
to be silent and resigned. You have therefore done well, M. le
Comte, to stigmatise them.' Thus, sir, did the pastor of the
largest diocese in Christendom express himself seventeen years
ago, congratulating me upon one of my first protests against the
spirit, which, since then, I have never ceased to combat. For it
is not to-day, but in 1852, that I began to struggle against the
detestable political and religious aberrations which make up con-
temporary Ultramontanism. Here, then, traced by the pen of
an Archbishop of Paris, is the explanation of the mystery that
preoccupies you, and of the contrast you point out between my
Ultramontanism of 1847 and my Gallicanism of 1870. There-
fore, without having either the will or the power to discuss the
question, now debated in the Council, I hail with the most
grateful admiration, first, the great and generous Bishop of
Orleans, then the eloquent and intrepid priests, who have had
the courage to stem the torrent of adulation, imposture, and
servility, by which we run the risk of being swallowed up.
Thanks to them, Catholic France will not have remained too
much below Germany, Hungary, and America."

In a note* below will be seen what the French Church has held

For the sake of those who do not know what Gallicanism means, we give the following text of the celebrated declaration of the Clergy of 1682, which asserts the freedom of the Gallican Church, and is known as "The Four Articles" :

:

as to the limits of Papal authority. Henceforth of course these Gallican opinions are utterly untenable, since the Pope has been declared sole, infallible, judge of his own rights. But the result proves that even the limited freedom claimed by the French National Church is an impossibility, so long as the Pope's authority is acknowledged in any degree whatever. There is no medium between absolute slavery to the spiritual despot and total renunciation of his authority. Union with Rome is absolutely incompatible with the freedom of a Church and People. Incompatible Of this fact there is no question, even in the mind of the Minister of a Roman Catholic country like Bavaria. In his letter to the Archbishop of Munich, the Minister states, that the Dogma mainly claims to draw, and has drawn, within the jurisdiction of the Pope, such matters as belong to the sphere of the State, so that all citizens would for the future have to take laws from the hand of the Pope, which might possibly be in antagonism to the ruling principles of modern States. But it is not only that the freedom, the very existence of a Church, as such, is ipso facto impossible, so long as one decree of her infallible Pope can at any . moment change or annul her canons, her acts, and her constitu

*

"Article 1. St. Peter and his successors, and the Church itself, received from Gallican Almighty God power over spiritual things only, not over political matters, Christ Articles. having said: 'My kingdom is not of this world. Consequently kings and princes cannot be deposed either directly or indirectly, nor can subjects be liberated from their oaths of allegiance, by the authority of the heads of the Church. And this doctrine must be inviolably received as conformable to the word of God, to the traditions of the Fathers, and to the example of the saints.

"Article 2. The full power of the Apostolic See and of the successors of Peter is such that the decrees of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Constance, approved of by the Apostolic See, (and which declared that general councils were superior to the Pope in matters of faith,) subsist in all their force and virtue.

"Article 3. Thence it results that the action of Apostolic power must be regulated according to the canons; that the rules, the manners, and the constitutions, received in this kingdom and by the Gallican Church must ever remain in vigour, and the limits appointed by our fathers must remain unchanged.

"Article 4. The Sovereign Pontiff has the principal power in questions of faith, and his decree extends over all Churches; his decision, however, is not irrevocable until the consent of the Church has confirmed it."-See "On the Knee of the Church," 2nd Edition. London: Macintosh, 1869. Chapter IV., pp. 73, 74.

* Letter from the Bavarian Minister of Public Worship to the Archbishop of Munich, Aug. 27, 1871.

Freedom im. possible.

tion, and even the articles of her faith. Roman Catholics, in all countries, are now beginning to find that Papal supremacy, however long kept in bounds, really means in the eyes of the usurper, the possession of uncontrolled dominion.

This absolute power is now assumed, in spite of the natural resistance of mankind, and has carried the absurd pretensions, by which the Popes have obtained their present usurped authority, one step further. Popes have succeeded in inducing nations "to believe a lie," and to submit to their rule as spiritual chiefs, by clever devices and a continuous succession of ingenious forgeries, dating from the middle of the ninth century; so now the last advance of all is made, and the Roman Pontiff is proclaimed, absolutely and without appeal, Lord over all. In order to fulfil this, he must be supposed infallible; for his claim is spiritual, and he must be endowed with highest spiritual attributes. The celebrated letter of Dr. Döllinger, which is given in full at the end of the present volume,* puts the subject in a remarkably strong light; more especially in the following forcible sentences, with which it concludes:

"He who wishes to measure the immense range of these resolutions [of the Council] may be urgently recommended to compare thoroughly the third chapter of the decrees in Council with the fourth; and to realise for himself what a system of universal Plenary power, government and spiritual dictation stands here before us. It is by infallibility,rejected. the plenary power over the whole Church, as over each separate member, such as the Popes have claimed for themselves since Gregory VII., such as is pronounced in the numerous Bulls since the Bull Unam Sanctum, which is henceforth to be believed and acknowledged in his life by every Catholic. This power is boundless, incalculable; it can, as Innocent III. said, strike at sin everywhere'; can punish every man, allows of no Supremacy. appeal, is sovereign and arbitrary, for, according to Bonafacius VIII., the Pope carries all rights in the shrine of his bosom."" That is, the Pope is made supreme over all Canon law and universally absolute. "As he has now become infallible, he can in one moment, with the one little word orbi, (that is, that he addresses

Vide, page 219.

As a

himself to the whole Church) make every thesis, every doctrine, Infallibility rejected. every demand an unerring and irrefragable article of faith. Against him there can be maintained no right, no personal or corporate freedom; or, as the Canonists say, the tribunal of God and that of the Pope are one and the same. This system bears its Romish origin on its forehead, and will never be able to penetrate in Germanic countries. As a Christian, as a Theologian, as a Historian, as a Citizen, I cannot accept this doctrine. Not as a Christian, for it is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, Christian. and with the plain words of Christ and the Apostles; it purposes just that establishment of the kingdom of this world, which Christ rejected; it claims that rule over all communions which Peter forbids to all and to himself. Not as a theologian, for the As a theolowhole true tradition of the Church is in irreconcilable opposition to it. Not as a historian can I accept it, for as such I know that As a historian. the persistent endeavour to realise the theory of a kingdom of the world has cost Europe rivers of blood, has confounded and degraded whole countries, has shaken the beautiful organic architecture of the elder Church, and has begotten, fed, and sustained

gian.

the worst abuses in the Church. Finally, as a citizen, I must As a citizen. reject this dogma, because by its claims on the submission of states and monarchs, and of the whole political order, under the Papal power, and by the exceptional position which it claims for the clergy, it lays the foundation of endless, ruinous disputes between State and Church, between clergy and laity; for I cannot conceal from myself, that this doctrine, the results of which were the ruin of the old German kingdom, would, if governing the Catholic part of the German nation, at once lay the seed of incurable decay in the new kingdom which has just been built up."

Jesuits obey their General because they have voluntarily Jesuits bound sworn to do so. But the Romish Church is to be subjected to by oath. the Pope's absolute sway in spite of itself, by the advance of his pretensions to godlike qualifications. The Pope being now above criticism and beyond control, the office of General of the Jesuits might become merged in the Popedom; and thus Jesuitism reign supreme. Or if the two offices be kept distinct, still a Pope can be managed more easily than an assembly: because if restive,