Dr. Manning to decide in all matters purely civil or in all matters purely on Ultra montanism. spiritual. The conflict arises over the mixed questions. And yet here there ought to be no real difficulty. Nobody can decide what questions are pure or what questions are mixed except a judge who can define the limits of these two elements respectively, and therefore of the respective jurisdictions. In any question as to the competence of the two powers, either there must be some judge to decide what does and what does not fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains, and how far it extends? And surely it is not enough that such a judge should guess, or opine, or pronounce upon doubtful evidence, or with an uncertain knowledge. Such a sentence would be, not an end of contention, but a beginning and a renewal of strife. It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. If, then, the civil power be not competent to decide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define with a Divine certainty its own limits, it is evidently supreme. Or, in other words, the spiritual power knows with Divine certainty the limits of its own jurisdiction; and it knows therefore the limits and the competence of the civil power. It is thereby in matters of religion and conscience supreme. I do not see how this can be denied without denying Christianity. And if this be so, this is the doctrine of the Bull 'Unam Sanctam,' and of the Syllabus, and of the Vatican Council. It is, in fact, Ultramontanism, for this term means neither less nor more. The Church Dr. Manning therefore is separate and supreme. Let us, then, ascertain somewhat further what is the meaning of supreme. Any power which is independent and can alone fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdictions, is, ipso facto, supreme. But the Church of Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, is all this, or is nothing, or worse than nothing, an imposture and an usurpation—that is, it is Christ or Antichrist. If it be Antichrist, every Cæsar from Nero to this day is justified. If it be Christ, it is the Supreme Power among men; that is to say, (1) It holds its commission and authority from God; (2) It holds in custody the faith and the law of Jesus Christ; (3) It is the sole interpreter of that faith and the sole expositor of that law. It has within the sphere of that commission a power to legislate with authority; to bind the consciences of all men born again in the baptism of Jesus Christ; it alone can fix the limits of the faith and law intrusted to it, and therefore the sphere of its own jurisdiction; it alone can decide in questions where its power is in contact with the civil power-that is, in mixed questions: for it alone can determine how far its own Divine office, or its own Divine trust, enters into and is implicated in such questions; and it is precisely that element, in any mixed question of disputed jurisdiction, which belongs to a higher order and to a higher tribunal. Ultramontanism consists, (1) In the separation of the two powers, and the vesting them in different persons; on Ultramontanism. Dr. Manning on Ultramon (2) In claiming for the Church the sole right to define tanism. doctrines of faith and morals; and (3) To fix the limits of its own jurisdiction in that sphere; (4) In the indissoluble union of the Church with, and submission to, the universal jurisdiction of the Holy See. Dr. Dollinger against Ultramontanism. V. DR. DOLLINGER'S DECLARATION AGAINST ULTRAMONTANISM. Referring to the Vatican resolutions, he rests his opposition to them on four grounds: 1. As to the texts of Scripture quoted in their support, he was bound by his oath as a priest to interpret Scripture according to the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and all the Fathers interpreted those texts in a totally different way from that now proposed. 2. The assertions of bishops that the new doctrine existed from the commencement in the Church were in conflict with the clearest facts and testimony. 3. Having repudiated the decrees on the grounds of Scripture and tradition, he goes on to explain their origin. The bishops of the Latin countries-Spain, Italy, South America, and France, who formed the great majority in Rome-have been led astray by false text-books systematically introduced into all the clerical seminaries in these countries, such as those of Alfonso Liguori, Perrone, Car ger against tanism. doni, and Ghilardi. 4. He appeals to the councils of the Dr. Dollinfifteenth century, which solemnly determined the limits of UltramonPapal power. 5. He declines to accept these new resolutions, from the authority they would give to such Papal declarations as the Syllabus, and the consequent conflict they must produce between religion and society. He concludes in these words: "This doctrine I cannot accept, either as a Christian, a theologian, a student of history, or as a citizen. Not as a Christian, for it is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, and with the clear utterances of Christ and of the Apostles. It sets up that kingdom of this world which Christ refused; it seeks that dominion over congregations which Peter denied to all and to himself. Not as a theologian, for the genuine tradition of the Church is altogether against it. Not as a student of history, for as such, I know that the persistent efforts to give reality to this theory of worldly dominion has cost Europe rivers of blood, has involved whole countries in disorder and ruin, has shattered the grand organisation of the ancient Church, and produced and fostered in the most fatal abuses. Finally, as a citizen I must reject it, because with its pretensions to subject states and monarchs, and the whole political system to the Papal power, and by the privileged position it demands for the clergy, it gives occasion to endless and fatal divisions between Church and State, Clergy and Laity.' Congress at Munich. VI. DECLARATION OF THE CATHOLIC September 22-24, 1871. 1. Conscious of our religious duties, we hold fast to the Old Catholic creed and worship, as attested in Scripture and in tradition. We regard ourselves, therefore, as actual members of the Catholic Church, and will not be deprived of communion with the Church, nor of the rights, which, through this communion, accrue to us in Church and State. 'We declare the ecclesiastical penalties decreed against us, on account of our fidelity to our creed, to be unjusti fiable and tyrannical: and we will not allow ourselves to be daunted or hindered by these censures in availing ourselves of our communion with the Church according to our conscience. 'From the point of view of the confession of faith contained in the so-called Tridentine Creed, we repudiate the dogmas introduced under the pontificate of Pius IX. in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church, and to the principles continuously followed since the Council of Jerusalem, especially the dogmas of the Pope's infallible teaching, and of his supreme episcopal and immediate jurisdiction. '2. We rely on the old constitution of the Church. |