Cardinal Newman's Reply to Gladstone

We discussed in the Review for January last, as fully as we though necessary, Mr. Gladston's main charge, that Papal

Infallibility, as defined by the Council of the Vatican, is incompatible with the civil allegiance of Catholics,-the

only charge that affects us Catholics in this country. Dr. Newman, in the publication before us, has replied to Mr. 

Gladstone's Expostulation in extenso,and has replied both as a Catholic and as an Englishman. We have no need to say

that the Reply is able and exhaustive, but, perhaps, its value is partially lessened by the fact that the author 

replies for himself, as an independent thinker, who writes on his own responsibility, from his own private and 

personal convictions, rather than as a Doctor of the Church, setting forth her doctrine. His convictions are, for 

the most part, coincident with the teachings of the Church, but do not appear to rest on her authority. His reply,

though, as a matter of fact, in the main satisfactory to Catholics, must be taken as the statement of the views of

Dr. John Henry Newman by non-Catholics, rather than as the authentic teaching of the Church, on the topics discussed;

and therefore will not be taken by Protestants as anything more than the answer, on his own hook, of a very learned,

able, and distinguished individual.

A friend, in whose judgment we place great confidence, remarks to us that Dr. Newman does not appear to write in a 

thoroughly Catholic spirit; that even when his doctrine is orthodox, the animus, the spirit, is at least half-Anglican.

Dr. Newman is decidedly an Englishman, with most of the characteristics of Englishmen. He seems to us to retain an 

affection for Anglicanism which we do not share; to believe it true and sound as far as it goes, and to have rejected 

it as defective rather than as false. His Catholicity, which we do not doubt is very genuine, is something added to his

Anglicanism, but not something different in kind. In fact, we detect no radical change in the habits of his mind effected

by his conversion; and his republication of his workds written and published when he was still an Anglican, with only very 

meagre notes, would seem to indicate that in his own judgment none did take place. Indeed he says expressly, somewhere in

his "Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine," that "conversion is a putting on, not a putting off." In our case it was

both,-a putting off of the old man, and a putting on of the new man; but then we were not an Anglican, nor one of the 

leaders of the "Oxford Movement." There can be no question that Dr. Newman is not in full and hearty sympathy with his

more earnest and enthusiastic brethren, and is far from falling in with them in their devotions to our Lady, for instance,

who is for him, in those of his writings we have seen, simply St. Mary, as if she were only an ordinary saint.

Yet we believe much of what seems to us defective in his Catholic sympathy is due to his English reserve, and not to any 

want of Catholic faith or devotion; to his English dread of overdoing; and appearing too demonstrative. He certainly did 

not sympathize with the Vatican decrees of the supremacy and infallibility of the pope; he seems to have some doubts if 

they have the authority of an oecumenical council, because a large minority of the Fathers refrained from voting, though

not voting against them, and he seems to think these decrees tend to lessen the papal dignity; yet he tells us he believes 

both the papal infallibility and supremacy, and did believe them before the Vatican decrees. He, evidently, has also wished 

to present his statement of the points of Catholic doctrine, specially objected to by Mr. Gladstone, in terms as little 

offensive to his countrymen as possible, without betraying the truth; yet he defends the papal character of the Church,

and maintains that the pope holds, jure divino, the deposing power, or power in extreme cases, of which he is the judge,

to depose a sovereign prince, and to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, than which nothing in Catholicity is more

offensive to English Protestants. He questions the authority of the Syllabus, but we have not found him countenancing any

error it condemns, or includes as condemned. He says not a few things that will displease many Catholics, and some things 

which we cannot accept, but it will be difficult, we apprehend, to convict him of any utterance against faith. At any rate,

whether his Reply proves satisfactory to Catholics or not, it contains nothing, as far as we can judge, to afford aid or 

comfort to the enemies of the Church.

The Review has never eulogized Dr. Newman, and it has criticized some of his publications with great severity, and incurred

much odium for itself thereby. We have never liked his English reserve, and apparent want of frankness and fulness in 

acknowledging his errors and mistakes; he has always seemed to us to write as if he felt himself the leader of a great 

movement, which he had to take care not to commit by any word or deed of his. the present work is not in all respects 

satisfactory to us; it reserves a right, in extreme cases, to follow one's private judgment against the authority of the 

pope, which we dare not claim, and have no disposition to claim for ourselves, even in matters in which the pope does not

claim infallibility; still, we like it better than any other of the author's publications that we have seen. Though 

conciliatory in spirit, and proving from first to last its author a loyal Englishman, it is bold, manly, independent,

and unreserved in the expression of his honest convictions. It is, upon the whole, an able defence of Catholicity on the 

points assailed by Mr. Gladstone, and scatters the charges preferred in his Expostulation to the four quarters of the globe. 

He triumphantly refutes not only the main charges, and proves, what every Catholic knows to be true, that a Catholic may be

loyal to the civil power, and obedient to his prince or the state in all respects permitted by the law of God, and is in no

respect a mental or moral slave. Indeed, the Catholic is the only free man, and the only subject on whose loyalty the prince 

can always rely, because he obeys his prince for conscience' sake.

While we accept the Reply as full and satisfactory in regard to Protestants, we are not quite satisfied with Dr. Newman's 

assertion taht "the pope is the heir of the rights, powers, privileges, and prerogatives of the Church of the fourth 

century." He maintains that all the rights, powers, privileges, and prerogatives claimed by the pope now or in mediaeval

times, were claimed and exercised by the Church in the fourth centruy, but which, through default, the vicissitudes of 

nations, or the action of Divine Providence, have all become centred in the Bishop of Rome, who inherits them all, 

because all others have failed, and there is no rival or adverse claimant, so that Providence has rendered true the words 

of our Lord: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church." This may be conclusive against Anglicans, but 

it strikes us as neither doctinally nor historically correct. Our Lord gave himself the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone,

not to all the apostles in common;and the Church started as papal. The pope had in the beginning all the powers, privileges, 

and prerogatives he has now, if we may believe St. Cyprian, who, in his De Unitate Ecclesia, maintains that for the

manifestation of unity, though all the apostles were equals, one cathedra was established, that of Peter, whence unity 

of the episcopate should be seen to take its rise. They were his from the beginning, and his by divine appointment, not

held in common with the Patriarch of antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. These patriarchs were independent of the Patriach

of the West, but not of the pope, or the chair of Peter. they held from the pope, and were answerable to him, who could judge

and depose them. Besides, the patriarchates did not exist in the beginning, but were subsequently established or recognized by 

the Apostolic See, as measures of administration; and that of Constantinople was not recognized by the pope, if we recollect 

aright, till the eighth or ninth century.

Dr. Dollinger, in his "Hippolytus," as also the Abbe Cruice, from data furnished by the newly discovered and published 

Philosophoumena, has proved that, in the decline of the second century and the beginning of the third, the popes claimed

and exercised all the authority in the Universal Church they do now, and that the Church was as decidedly papal in the second 

and third centuries as it was in the thirteenth or is in the nineteenth century. Dr. Newman has been misled, we say it with 

due deference, by his Anglican reading of history and by the theory of development. We regret that Dr. Newman retains a 

lingering affection for the theory of development, which he invented while yet an Anglican, as a facile way of getting over 

difficulties which he supposed, as an Anglican, exist in the way of accepting the Catholic Church; for his high character, 

great learning, and eminent ability are not unlikely to gain for it a credit it does not deserve, and which may do harm. We

think a revision of his Anglican reading of Church history, with a little more confidence in the learning and good faith

of Catholic writers not converts from Anglicanism, would convince him that the difficulites Anglicans allege, are imaginary, 

and no theory of the sort to enable one to get over them is called for.

We are glad to see that Dr. Newman accepts as of divine right the pope's deposing power, which many Catholics deny. Our able 

and learned collaborateur, in his essay on St. Gregory VII, is intent not so much on discussing the origin and ground of the 

power exercised by Gregory in deposing Henry IV of Germany, as on showing Henry's unfitness to reign over a Catholic people, 

and that his deposition by the pope was in accordance with the jus publicum of the time, and the consent and demand of the 

German nation. He remarks, by the way, that in his view the pope held the power both by divine right, by the jus publicum of 

Europe at the time, and by the consent of kings and peoples. We think he will permit us to say, that he has not sufficiently

disinguished the ground of the pope's right or power from the conditions of its efficient exercise. The pope holds the power 

as Vicar of Christ, from God, not from man, kings or peoples. St. Gregory professes to depose Henry by the authority of 

Almighty God, in the name of Saints Peter and Paul; and we are not at liberty to supoose either that he was ignorant of the 

title by which he held the power he was exercising, or that he misstated it. In no instance does the pope, in deposing a 

sovereign prince, claim to act from any other than divine authority; and to assume to do it on any lower authority would,

in our judgment, be monstrous, and decidedly revolutionary.The right or power is inherent in the spiritual order, and is 

inseparable from the divine sovereignty, of which the pope is the divine sovereignty, of which the pope is the divinely 

appointed representative and guardian in the government of men and nations. This much is plainly asserted or implied in the 

dogmatic bull, Unam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII, and must be accepted if we recognize the pope at all as the Chief of the 

Christian commonwealth, which includes princes or states as well as 

individuals. 

Christianity is a creed to be believed, but it is also a law to be obeyed. As law, it is obligatory upon every individual in 

theChristian community, and binds alike all manner of persons, of whatever rank or condition, kings, princes, nobles, 

statesmen, men in authority, or vested with civil functions, as well as private individuals, for "with God there is no respect

of persons," and no one is despensed from obedience to his law. The pope, as the divinely appointed guardian and judge of this 

law, which includes both the natural law and the revealed law, since "gratia supponit naturam," must have, jure divino, 

jurisdiction over the civil power, and the right to apply the law to men in authority or vested with civil functions as well 

as to any other persons, and subject them to the discipline he judges proper in the case. The right or power is divine, and 

held by the pope as Vicar of Christ. But the pope cannot efficiently exercise this right except when and where faith is strong 

and fervid, when and where it is in accordance with the jus publicum, and is assented to by the people. The error of the 

excellent and learned M. Gosselin is in taking the necessary conditions of the effective exercise of the pope's power in the 

civil order for the origin and ground of the power, or of the right itself. As these conditions have formany centuries ceased 

to exist, there has prevailed among both Catholics and non-Catholics an opinion that the right itself no longer exists; that 

Rome has abandoned all claim to the power over kings and princes she once exercised. The right or power cannot be abandoned, 

any more than the papacy itself; but the pope can desist from asserting it when its effective exercise has ceased to be 

practicable. St. Peter had the power to declare the deposition of the Roman Caesar, but what practical force would his 

declaration have had? Pius IX may declare the new German emperor deposed and his subjects absolved from their allegiance, 

but his declaration, except by a miracle or the direct interposition of God himself, would be of no avail; would be, 

practically, a mere brutum fulmen. There need be no fear of the papcy on account of this asserted deposing power, and Mr. 

Gladstone himself must know that in our times it cannot be exercised with effect, yet, if it coulod be so exercised, it would

be a great benefit to civilization. We must here let Dr. Newman speak for us, or rather Pius IX cited by him:-

"As if to answer Mr. Gladstone by anticipation, and to allay his fears, the pope made a declaration three years ago on the 

subject, which, strange to say, Mr. Gladstone quotes without perceiving that it tells against the very argument which he 

brings it to corroborate;-that is, except as the Pope's animus goes. Doubtless he would wish to have the place in the 

political world which his predecessors had, because it was given to him by Providence, and is conducive to the highest 

interests of mankind; but he distinctly tells us that he has not got it, and cannot have it, till a time comes, of the 

prospect of which we are as good judges as he can be, and which we say cannot come, at least for centuries. He speaks 

of what is his highest politcal power, that of interposing in the quarrel between a prince and his subjects, and of 

declaring, upon appeal made to him from them, that the prince had or had not forfeited their allegiance. This power, most 

rarely exercised, and on very extraordinary occasions, and without any aid of infallibility in the exercise of it, any

more than the civil power possesses that aid, it is not necessary for any Catholic to believe; and I suppose, 

comparatively speaking, few Catholics do believe it: to be honest, I must say, I do; that is, under the conditions 

which the pope himself lays down in the declaration to which I have referred, his answer to the address of the Academia.

He speaks of his right 'to depose sovereigns, and release the people fromthe obligation of loyalty, a right which had

undoubtedly sometimes been exercised in crucial circumstances;' and he says: 'This right (diritto) in those ages of faith,-

(which discerned in the pope, what he is, that is to say, the Supreme Judge of Christianity, and recognized the advantages

of his tribunal in the great contests of peoples and sovereigns)-was freely extended,-(aided indeed as a matter of duty by 

the public law (diritto) and by the common consent of peoples)-to the most important (i piu gravi) interests of states and 

their rulers.' (Guardian, Nov. 11, 1874.)

Now let us observe how the pope restains the exercise of this right. He calls it his right-that is, in the sense in which 

right in one party is correlative with duty in the other, so that, when the duty is not observed, the right cannot be brought 

into exercise; and this is precisely what he goes on to intimate; for he lays down the conditions of that exercise. First it 

can only be exercised in rare and critical circumstances (supreme circonstanze, i piu gravi interessi). Next he refers to

his being the supreme judge of Christianity, and to his decision as coming from a tribunal: his prerogative, then, is not a 

mere arbitrary power, but must be exercised by a process of law and a formal examination of the case, and in the presence and

the hearing of the two parties interested in it. Also in this limitation is implied that the pope's definitive sentence 

involves an appeal to the supreme standard of right and wrong, the moral law, as its basis and rule, and must contain the 

definite reasons on which it decides in favor of the one party or the other. Thirdly, the exercise of this right is limited 

to the ages of faith; ages which, on the one hand, inscribed it among the provisions of the jus publicum, and on the other 

so fully recognized the benefits it conferred, as to be able to enforce it by the common consent of the peoples. These last

words should be dwelt on: it is no consent which is merely local, as of one country, of Ireland or of Belgium, if that were

porbable; but a united consent of various nations, of Europe, for instance, as a commonwealth, of which the pope was the 

head. Thirty years ago we heard much of the pope being made the head of an Italian confederation: no word came from England 

against such an arrangement. It was possible, because the members of it were all of one religion; and in like manner a 

European commonwealth would be reasonable, if Europe were one religion. Lastly, the pope declares with indignation that a 

pope is not infallible in the exercise of this right; such a notion is an invention of the enemy; he calls it 'malicious.'" 

(pp.46. 48)

As we read the declaration of the Supreme Pontiff in reply to the Address of the Academia, he asserts the right of the 

papacy, but confesses that in the present state of Christendom its exercise is impracticable: which is precisely what we 

ourselves have always maintained. Practically considered, the pope neither has nor claims to have the deposing power, and, 

in this sense, the first Bishop of Pittsburg was right when he said, in his controversy with us, that the claim is abandoned 

at Rome. It is abandoned, not as a right inherent in the papacy, as included in the supremacy of the pope, but as a power 

that as things now are, and are likely to be for a long time to come, cannot be practically exercised. This is Dr. Newman's

view in answer to Mr. Gladstone, and ought to allay the apprehensions of all those who pretend the papal supremacy is 

incompatible with civil allegiance.

Dr. Newman is quite right in denying that the pope in exercising the deposing power is infallible. The pope is infallible in 

teaching, but we do not understand that he claims to be infallible in governing. The pope cannot err as to the law, but he 

may err or make mistakes in its application to particular cases, where his only guide is human prudence. We accept, without

any reservation, Dr. Newman's statement on this point:

"In saying this, I am far from saying that popes are never in the wrong, and are never to be resisted, or that their 

excommunications always avail. I am not bound to defend the policy or the acts of particular popes, whether before or after 

the great revolt from their authority in the 16th century. There is no reason that I should contend, and I do not contend, 

for instance, that they at all times have understood our own people, our national character and resources, and our position 

in Europe; or that they have never suffered from bad counsellors or misinformation. I say this the more freely, because 

Urban VIII, about the year 1641 or 1642, blamed the policy of some popes of the preceding century in their dealings with 

our country."* (p.43)

The decree of the Council of the Vatican defining papal infallibility affects the question of the relation of the papacy 

to the civil power only in one single respect. It simply forbids Catholics to deny that what, in the Middle Ages, was 

called the temporal power of the popes is held by divine right, for all the popes who exercised it claimed to exercise 

it in the name of God, as successors of Peter and Vicars of Christ, and, if not infallible in its exercise, they are 

infallible in declaring the title by which they hold it, since that pertains to the domain of faith or doctrine. The 

definition of the papal infallibility adds nothing to the practical power of the pope, but it vindicates his right to 

exercise authority over kings and princes as over all other persons, and to apply to them the law of Got, to require 

them to rule justly, to respect the rights of God, which include the rights of the subject and the so-called rights 

of man, and to depose them and absolve their subjects from their allegiance, if they cannot otherwise be brought to 

respect the divine law in their government. The popes, we concede, do not possess the practical power, but what we 

contend is, that they do possess the right, and can no more abandon it or surrender it than they can the papacy itself.

The pope is not infallible in the government of the Church, but he holds his authority by divine right, and his 

authority is supreme, and no one can disobey or refuse to obey any command of his without disobedience to God. That in 

the exercise of his extreme powers the pope has made mistakes, is possible; that he has made mistakes, we do not think 

we have any right to say. Authority judges; it is not judged. Dr. Newman goes farther than we dare go. He is an 

Englishman, and obedience costs him something. He strikes us as somewhat stingy, if not in his actual obedience, at least 

in his avowals of his obligation to obey the sovereign pontiff, and takes care to reserve the right to disobey, when in 

his own privat judgment he thinks he ought not to obey. We do not understand this reserve. The pope is the Vicar of Christ,

who has all power in heaven and earth from his Father; and when the pope commands, it is ours to obey without any 

reservation. If a true Catholic, all we need know is, that the alleged command is given by the pope, and what it really 

means. We must obey as if from God himself, as Abraham showed himself ready to offer up his son Isaac at the divine 

command. Man has no rights against God his Creater, Proprietor, and consequently none against the Vicar of God.

The pope, however, is not even now without authority in temporals, hardly less than he had in the Middle Ages. His sentence 

of deposition against a sovereign prince would not now be executed, any more than it would have been under pagan Rome. 

Deposition was always an extreme measure, resorted to with extreme reluctance, and only after all other remedies were 

exhausted; and it has very seldom been resorted to at all, not more than once in a hundred years upon average. But the pope,

if he cannot now exercise that extreme power, can and does exercise his power as the supreme head of the whole body of the 

faithful. It is true he has no physical force at his command, and there is no nation that he can call upon to execute his 

orders; but he has a firmer support in the faith and conscience of Catholics, or the people of God. Catholics may disobey

the commands of the pope, as they may disobey the commands of God, but at the risk of their salvation; yet are they bound

in conscience to obey him, morally bound by his prescriptions, and  we are aware of no limits to this obligation.

Dr. Newman labors long and hard, while asserting the power of the pope, to show that they pope, as a matter of fact, rarely

interferes in the affairs of the Church, or makes his power felt, especially in temporal matters. Yet he ought to remember 

that all power in the Church emanates from God through the pope, the centre and fountain of all ecclesiastical authority. The

Church is papal, founded on Peter, not episcopal, as Anglicans hold. There is no authority in the Church that does not hold 

from the pope. I am bound to obey the pope, because, in obeying him, I am obeying God; and I am bound to obey my bishop or my 

parish priest, because, in obeying either, I am obeying the pope, the Vicar of God. Separated from the pope or unauthorized 

by him, I am bound, nay, forbidden, to obey either. we therefore do not agree with Dr. Newman that it is only on rare 

occasions that the pope interferes and makes his authority felt in the governement of the Church or of Catholics; nor do we 

think it well to try to keep the pope as much in the background as possible. It may be good policy, so far as concerns those 

who are prejudiced against the papacy, but we think the effect is bad, so far as concerns the faithful themselves. 

Gallicanism could hardly have arisen if the true papal constitution and character of the Church had been always brought out 

and fully insisted on. The apostasy of England, or, if you prefer, the loss of England to the Church, was due in a great

measure to the same cause. The English were never thoroughgoing papists. The pope was never for them the representatives of

the spiritual order. He was admitted, indeed, to be at the summit of the hierarchy, but not generally recognized as also at

its base. The church by the English people was not regarded as founded on Peter, but on the episcopacy, and simply completed

by the addition of the papacy. Hence an Englishman was capable of conceiving the suppression of the papacy, and the Church 

as remaining in all its essential elements. Indeed we can, or at least imagine we can, trace the germ of Anglicanism in the

Church in England from the Norman Conquest down. We hold it all-important, then, that the real power and office of the pope 

should be fully brought out and placed in the foreground. Thence it is we hail with so much joy and gratitude the Vatican

decrees defining the supremacy and infallibility of the pope. They bring out and place in an unmistakable light the 

essentially papal constitution and character of the Church. Papist is a title of honor, and we glory in it.

Though the pope has not, in the present state of hte world, of the nations which no longer constitute a Christian republic

governed by Christian principles, the practical power to depose sovereigns, he retains in principle all his rights, and 

exercises, in teaching and governing Catholics, his full supremacy, the same as if all the world were Catholic. That his

supremacy in its principle and the end for which he holds and exercises it is spiritual, is undeniable; but it is not true 

that its exercise has no temporal effects, and no bearing on the question of obedience to the state. We agree with Dr. 

Newman that the obedience I owe to the pope as the chief of my religion, does in no sense conflict with any duty I owe to 

the state; but this does not say that it never conflicts with any obedience the civil power from time to time does or may 

exact of me. We see the conflict of the two powers in some one country or another constantly occurring. There is this 

conflict now raging in Germany, and it raged most terribly in England and Ireland from the Reformation down nearly to our 

own times. England passed acts declaring hte profession and practice of the Catholic religion high-treason, and then 

hanged Catholics as traitors. Germany passes acts which deny the rights and freedom of the Church, and which no Catholic can

obey, which the pope declares null, and forbids Catholics to obey; and many bishops and priests are now suffering 

imprisonment and exile, because they obey the pope rather than the state. Now, if you assume with that quibbling lawyer, Sir

George Bowyer, that the state is independent in its order-and as nearly all statesmen and publicists assume-how can you 

maintain that the papal supremacy is in no respect incompatible with the allegiance Catholics owe to the civil power?

Dr. Newman does not, as we read him, meet this question fairly and squarely. Archbishop Manning meets it in principle, when 

he says, the subject "is bound to obey the civil government in all things not unlawful:" not forbidden by the law of God, we 

presume is meant. But this denies that civil allegiance is unlimited, and therefore denies the old heathen doctrine revived 

in the modern world,, namely, the omnipotence of the state. The papal supremacy, as held by Catholics, is not incompatible

with civil allegiance when that allegiance is understood, with its proper limitations, as suboridnate to the law of God; but 

when understood to be omnipotent, as it is claimed to be by your Bismarcks, Gladstones, most Protestants, and all despots,

it is, to a certain extent at least, incompatible with obedience to the state, for it limits or restricts it.

These limitations imposed by the law of God, but which the political atheism of the age treats with contempt, the pope 

insists on being observed by Catholics. They are equally obligatory on all, for the law of God is universal; but they cannot 

be enforced on anti-Catholic legislatures, for the pope, as we have said, has no means of enforcing their observance and

they are supported only by the fairth and conscience, of Catholics, and practically obeyed by Catholics only. There are 

numberous subjects over which the civile power claims jurisdiction, which belong to the jurisdiction of the Chruch, or 

spiritual power. Marriage, for instance. On the subject of marriage and divorce, the legislation of the state and the laws

of the Chruch are frequently in conflict; and, besides, as marriage is always res sacra, and, under the Christian law, a 

sacrament, the Church denies the right of the state to legislate on the question at all. The Church holds marriage to be 

indissoluble save by death. A Catholic legislator can neither defend civil marriage, nor legislate in favor of divorce. He

can do nothing against the laws of marriage, as defined by the Church, either for himself or for orthers. The Catholic must 

follow his Church, whatever laws respecting marriage the state may enact.

So of education. A system of education, which either admits no religion, or admits only a false religion, no Catholic can 

support. This is the reason why Catholics oppose our public schools. No doubt, much is said against these schools that is 

untrue or grossly exaggerated; and if the public were a Catholic public, and the Catholic religion made the basis of the 

education given in them, they would be all that we could ask for our children. Where the people are all of one religion,

common schools are practicable and desirable; but where a portion of the people are Catholics, and the rest are sectarians, 

and all have equal civil rights, they are impracticable, because either religion, the most essential part of all good 

education, must be exluded, or the rights of conscience and the equal rights of citizens be violated. We accept the

principle of the pulic-school system, that the property of the commonwealth should educate the children of the commonwealth;

but this is impracticable in common schools in a community divided as ours is. The attempt to do it fails, and tends only 

to secularize thought, and to create religious indifferentism. The supervision of education belongs to the religious body,

and the Church cannot surrender it to the civil power, any more than she can marriage itself. Hence, as the Church has no 

supervision of the public schools, and cannot teach her religion in them, she cannot permit Catholics, unless in exceptional

cases, to send their children and wards to them.

Mr. Gladstone evidently holds that he owes his party defeat and loss of office and power to the adverse votes of the Catholic

members of Parliament on the Irish University bill, and we owe, we presume, to his defeat his savage onslaught upon the 

papacy, and his attempt to extinguish Catholicity in Great Britain. He considers the papal supremacy as incompatible with civil

allegiance, because it has suffered Catholics to vote against his University bill, framed, in his judgment, in their

educational interests. We do not agree with Dr. Newman, that the pope had nothing to do with Mr. Gladston's defeat. He may 

not have personally and formally ordered the opposition, but the papacy defeated him, for the bishops, in opposing the bill, 

followed it and acted in accordance with its principles; and Catholics have no right to complain that the pope is held

responsible, as Chief Pastor, for their action, especially as he has not disclaimed it. But by what right does Mr. Gladstone

assume that loyalty to the Queen or the state required the Catholic Irish members of Parliament, or the Catholic bishops of

Ireland, to support his Irish University bill? We can detect no breach of loyalty or patriotism, in opposing a measure which 

promised no good either to religion or to politics. The measure was framed with rare unwisdom, and fitted to satisfy nobody.

In framing it, Mr. Gladstone overlooked the fixed and immutable nature of religion, and went on the supposition that 

principles in religion may be compromised, as they are int he British Constitution, which is no constitution at all, or a 

constitution with only one article, namely, the omnipotence of Parliament. Parliament may do anything but make a man a woman.

Mr. Gladstone's bill showed that he had no conception of true religious liberty, and no disposition to secure freedom of 

education to Catholics; and we understand not why Catholic bishops had not as much right to oppose it as he had to introduce 

and urge it.

But the opposition of the Catholic prelates to the bill, urged on Catholic grounds, shows, not that the papacy is incompatible 

with the civil allegiance of Catholics, but, as we have said, that it is incompatible with many things statesmen claim on the 

score of civil allegiance. While the state, as under Protestanism or Paganism, holds itself exempt from the law of God, or 

claims the right to interpret the law for itself, conflicts between the papacy and the civil power will arise, and , aat bottom,

of the same nature with that of the pope and emperor in the Middle Ages. The pope cannot now depose the emperor, but he can 

forbid Catholics to obey the emperor in any of his commands which require them to do wrong or to act against the law of God or 

their faith as Catholics, and they are bound to obey him at whatever peril, even to confiscation of goods, imprisonment, exile,

or death. The pope governs the Universal Church, and governs as if the whole world were Catholic, though only Catholics are

obedienct subjects of his government. But then he governs according to the Divine Law. He enjoins that law, and forbids 

whatever is contrary to it.

There is nothing in this that disturbs the constitution of the state or the action of the civil law; only that Catholics simply 

refuse to obey the civil power when it commands them to disobey God. Catholics can suffer wrong from the unjust action of the 

state, as they have proved by their submission to the most cruel persecutions in all ages and nations; but they cannot do wrong

at its command without forfeiting their Catholic character. We must obey God rather than men. Catholics are never seditious,

rebels, or revolutionists. They will not obey a Nero when he commands them to do what the law of God forbids them to do, nor

refrain at his order from doing what it commands them to do; but in all else they will cheerfully submit to his orders, and 

neither resist his power, nore conspire against his authority and seek to overthrow his government. Indeed, this submission 

of Catholics to the "powers that be," though unmitigated tyrants as many of the pagan Caesars were, is not seldom urged against 

Catholics as a reproach, as a proof of their tameness, want of spirit, and true manliness. Mr. Gladstone would have done better

to have charged Catholics, not with the want, but with an excess, of loyalty. Nothing can exceed their submission to authority,

or their devotion to the regularly established order. They are abused for this devotion, and much less opposition, would they 

meet if they were radicals, innovators, and revolutionists, seeking to turn the world upside-down, to throw all things into 

confusion, and make society a wild, weltering chaos.

In fact, it is this very respect, inspired by the Church, of Catholics for authority and their indisposition to conspire

against it, or to effect politcal and social reforms, or changes rather, by violence, that renders them so distasteful to the 

men of the world, and brings against the chief of our religion the charge of being hostile to "modern ideas" and "modern

civilization." Modern society is revolutionary, holds "the sacred right of insurrection," and pretends thatthe people, or

a disaffected portion of them, have not only the right to disobey the government, but to subvert it by violence, whenever they

see proper; and that they are not guilty of any crime or wrong-unless they fail. It is only unsuccessful conspiracy, rebellion, 

or revolution, that is censurable, according to modern ideas; and hence it is that civil governments can sustain themselves only 

by armed force. The governments of Europe require five millions of bayonets to defend them against their own subjects. Not one 

of them governs by moral power, or could stand twenty-four hours, if it were not backed by the army. Yet the Church is denounced 

as the enemy of society, and hostile to progress! How little do the Bismarcks, the Gladstones, and othersof their stamp, 

understand that the refusal of Catholics to obey the civil power when it commands them to do wrong, but not when it commands

them to suffer wrong, is the surest of all reliances for the free working and stability of civil government.

We discussed in the Review for January last, as fully as we though necessary, Mr. Gladston's main charge, that Papal

Infallibility, as defined by the Council of the Vatican, is incompatible with the civil allegiance of Catholics,-the

only charge that affects us Catholics in this country. Dr. Newman, in the publication before us, has replied to Mr. 

Gladstone's Expostulation in extenso,and has replied both as a Catholic and as an Englishman. We have no need to say

that the Reply is able and exhaustive, but, perhaps, its value is partially lessened by the fact that the author 

replies for himself, as an independent thinker, who writes on his own responsibility, from his own private and 

personal convictions, rather than as a Doctor of the Church, setting forth her doctrine. His convictions are, for 

the most part, coincident with the teachings of the Church, but do not appear to rest on her authority. His reply,

though, as a matter of fact, in the main satisfactory to Catholics, must be taken as the statement of the views of

Dr. John Henry Newman by non-Catholics, rather than as the authentic teaching of the Church, on the topics discussed;

and therefore will not be taken by Protestants as anything more than the answer, on his own hook, of a very learned,

able, and distinguished individual.

A friend, in whose judgment we place great confidence, remarks to us that Dr. Newman does not appear to write in a 

thoroughly Catholic spirit; that even when his doctrine is orthodox, the animus, the spirit, is at least half-Anglican.

Dr. Newman is decidedly an Englishman, with most of the characteristics of Englishmen. He seems to us to retain an 

affection for Anglicanism which we do not share; to believe it true and sound as far as it goes, and to have rejected 

it as defective rather than as false. His Catholicity, which we do not doubt is very genuine, is something added to his

Anglicanism, but not something different in kind. In fact, we detect no radical change in the habits of his mind effected

by his conversion; and his republication of his workds written and published when he was still an Anglican, with only very 

meagre notes, would seem to indicate that in his own judgment none did take place. Indeed he says expressly, somewhere in

his "Essay on Development of Christian Doctrine," that "conversion is a putting on, not a putting off." In our case it was

both,-a putting off of the old man, and a putting on of the new man; but then we were not an Anglican, nor one of the 

leaders of the "Oxford Movement." There can be no question that Dr. Newman is not in full and hearty sympathy with his

more earnest and enthusiastic brethren, and is far from falling in with them in their devotions to our Lady, for instance,

who is for him, in those of his writings we have seen, simply St. Mary, as if she were only an ordinary saint.

Yet we believe much of what seems to us defective in his Catholic sympathy is due to his English reserve, and not to any 

want of Catholic faith or devotion; to his English dread of overdoing; and appearing too demonstrative. He certainly did 

not sympathize with the Vatican decrees of the supremacy and infallibility of the pope; he seems to have some doubts if 

they have the authority of an oecumenical council, because a large minority of the Fathers refrained from voting, though

not voting against them, and he seems to think these decrees tend to lessen the papal dignity; yet he tells us he believes 

both the papal infallibility and supremacy, and did believe them before the Vatican decrees. He, evidently, has also wished 

to present his statement of the points of Catholic doctrine, specially objected to by Mr. Gladstone, in terms as little 

offensive to his countrymen as possible, without betraying the truth; yet he defends the papal character of the Church,

and maintains that the pope holds, jure divino, the deposing power, or power in extreme cases, of which he is the judge,

to depose a sovereign prince, and to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, than which nothing in Catholicity is more

offensive to English Protestants. He questions the authority of the Syllabus, but we have not found him countenancing any

error it condemns, or includes as condemned. He says not a few things that will displease many Catholics, and some things 

which we cannot accept, but it will be difficult, we apprehend, to convict him of any utterance against faith. At any rate,

whether his Reply proves satisfactory to Catholics or not, it contains nothing, as far as we can judge, to afford aid or 

comfort to the enemies of the Church.

The Review has never eulogized Dr. Newman, and it has criticized some of his publications with great severity, and incurred

much odium for itself thereby. We have never liked his English reserve, and apparent want of frankness and fulness in 

acknowledging his errors and mistakes; he has always seemed to us to write as if he felt himself the leader of a great 

movement, which he had to take care not to commit by any word or deed of his. the present work is not in all respects 

satisfactory to us; it reserves a right, in extreme cases, to follow one's private judgment against the authority of the 

pope, which we dare not claim, and have no disposition to claim for ourselves, even in matters in which the pope does not

claim infallibility; still, we like it better than any other of the author's publications that we have seen. Though 

conciliatory in spirit, and proving from first to last its author a loyal Englishman, it is bold, manly, independent,

and unreserved in the expression of his honest convictions. It is, upon the whole, an able defence of Catholicity on the 

points assailed by Mr. Gladstone, and scatters the charges preferred in his Expostulation to the four quarters of the globe. 

He triumphantly refutes not only the main charges, and proves, what every Catholic knows to be true, that a Catholic may be

loyal to the civil power, and obedient to his prince or the state in all respects permitted by the law of God, and is in no

respect a mental or moral slave. Indeed, the Catholic is the only free man, and the only subject on whose loyalty the prince 

can always rely, because he obeys his prince for conscience' sake.

While we accept the Reply as full and satisfactory in regard to Protestants, we are not quite satisfied with Dr. Newman's 

assertion taht "the pope is the heir of the rights, powers, privileges, and prerogatives of the Church of the fourth 

century." He maintains that all the rights, powers, privileges, and prerogatives claimed by the pope now or in mediaeval

times, were claimed and exercised by the Church in the fourth centruy, but which, through default, the vicissitudes of 

nations, or the action of Divine Providence, have all become centred in the Bishop of Rome, who inherits them all, 

because all others have failed, and there is no rival or adverse claimant, so that Providence has rendered true the words 

of our Lord: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church." This may be conclusive against Anglicans, but 

it strikes us as neither doctinally nor historically correct. Our Lord gave himself the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone,

not to all the apostles in common;and the Church started as papal. The pope had in the beginning all the powers, privileges, 

and prerogatives he has now, if we may believe St. Cyprian, who, in his De Unitate Ecclesia, maintains that for the

manifestation of unity, though all the apostles were equals, one cathedra was established, that of Peter, whence unity 

of the episcopate should be seen to take its rise. They were his from the beginning, and his by divine appointment, not

held in common with the Patriarch of antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. These patriarchs were independent of the Patriach

of the West, but not of the pope, or the chair of Peter. they held from the pope, and were answerable to him, who could judge

and depose them. Besides, the patriarchates did not exist in the beginning, but were subsequently established or recognized by 

the Apostolic See, as measures of administration; and that of Constantinople was not recognized by the pope, if we recollect 

aright, till the eighth or ninth century.

Dr. Dollinger, in his "Hippolytus," as also the Abbe Cruice, from data furnished by the newly discovered and published 

Philosophoumena, has proved that, in the decline of the second century and the beginning of the third, the popes claimed

and exercised all the authority in the Universal Church they do now, and that the Church was as decidedly papal in the second 

and third centuries as it was in the thirteenth or is in the nineteenth century. Dr. Newman has been misled, we say it with 

due deference, by his Anglican reading of history and by the theory of development. We regret that Dr. Newman retains a 

lingering affection for the theory of development, which he invented while yet an Anglican, as a facile way of getting over 

difficulties which he supposed, as an Anglican, exist in the way of accepting the Catholic Church; for his high character, 

great learning, and eminent ability are not unlikely to gain for it a credit it does not deserve, and which may do harm. We

think a revision of his Anglican reading of Church history, with a little more confidence in the learning and good faith

of Catholic writers not converts from Anglicanism, would convince him that the difficulites Anglicans allege, are imaginary, 

and no theory of the sort to enable one to get over them is called for.

We are glad to see that Dr. Newman accepts as of divine right the pope's deposing power, which many Catholics deny. Our able 

and learned collaborateur, in his essay on St. Gregory VII, is intent not so much on discussing the origin and ground of the 

power exercised by Gregory in deposing Henry IV of Germany, as on showing Henry's unfitness to reign over a Catholic people, 

and that his deposition by the pope was in accordance with the jus publicum of the time, and the consent and demand of the 

German nation. He remarks, by the way, that in his view the pope held the power both by divine right, by the jus publicum of 

Europe at the time, and by the consent of kings and peoples. We think he will permit us to say, that he has not sufficiently

disinguished the ground of the pope's right or power from the conditions of its efficient exercise. The pope holds the power 

as Vicar of Christ, from God, not from man, kings or peoples. St. Gregory professes to depose Henry by the authority of 

Almighty God, in the name of Saints Peter and Paul; and we are not at liberty to supoose either that he was ignorant of the 

title by which he held the power he was exercising, or that he misstated it. In no instance does the pope, in deposing a 

sovereign prince, claim to act from any other than divine authority; and to assume to do it on any lower authority would,

in our judgment, be monstrous, and decidedly revolutionary.The right or power is inherent in the spiritual order, and is 

inseparable from the divine sovereignty, of which the pope is the divine sovereignty, of which the pope is the divinely 

appointed representative and guardian in the government of men and nations. This much is plainly asserted or implied in the 

dogmatic bull, Unam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII, and must be accepted if we recognize the pope at all as the Chief of the 

Christian commonwealth, which includes princes or states as well as 

individuals. 

Christianity is a creed to be believed, but it is also a law to be obeyed. As law, it is obligatory upon every individual in 

theChristian community, and binds alike all manner of persons, of whatever rank or condition, kings, princes, nobles, 

statesmen, men in authority, or vested with civil functions, as well as private individuals, for "with God there is no respect

of persons," and no one is despensed from obedience to his law. The pope, as the divinely appointed guardian and judge of this 

law, which includes both the natural law and the revealed law, since "gratia supponit naturam," must have, jure divino, 

jurisdiction over the civil power, and the right to apply the law to men in authority or vested with civil functions as well 

as to any other persons, and subject them to the discipline he judges proper in the case. The right or power is divine, and 

held by the pope as Vicar of Christ. But the pope cannot efficiently exercise this right except when and where faith is strong 

and fervid, when and where it is in accordance with the jus publicum, and is assented to by the people. The error of the 

excellent and learned M. Gosselin is in taking the necessary conditions of the effective exercise of the pope's power in the 

civil order for the origin and ground of the power, or of the right itself. As these conditions have formany centuries ceased 

to exist, there has prevailed among both Catholics and non-Catholics an opinion that the right itself no longer exists; that 

Rome has abandoned all claim to the power over kings and princes she once exercised. The right or power cannot be abandoned, 

any more than the papacy itself; but the pope can desist from asserting it when its effective exercise has ceased to be 

practicable. St. Peter had the power to declare the deposition of the Roman Caesar, but what practical force would his 

declaration have had? Pius IX may declare the new German emperor deposed and his subjects absolved from their allegiance, 

but his declaration, except by a miracle or the direct interposition of God himself, would be of no avail; would be, 

practically, a mere brutum fulmen. There need be no fear of the papcy on account of this asserted deposing power, and Mr. 

Gladstone himself must know that in our times it cannot be exercised with effect, yet, if it coulod be so exercised, it would

be a great benefit to civilization. We must here let Dr. Newman speak for us, or rather Pius IX cited by him:-

"As if to answer Mr. Gladstone by anticipation, and to allay his fears, the pope made a declaration three years ago on the 

subject, which, strange to say, Mr. Gladstone quotes without perceiving that it tells against the very argument which he 

brings it to corroborate;-that is, except as the Pope's animus goes. Doubtless he would wish to have the place in the 

political world which his predecessors had, because it was given to him by Providence, and is conducive to the highest 

interests of mankind; but he distinctly tells us that he has not got it, and cannot have it, till a time comes, of the 

prospect of which we are as good judges as he can be, and which we say cannot come, at least for centuries. He speaks 

of what is his highest politcal power, that of interposing in the quarrel between a prince and his subjects, and of 

declaring, upon appeal made to him from them, that the prince had or had not forfeited their allegiance. This power, most 

rarely exercised, and on very extraordinary occasions, and without any aid of infallibility in the exercise of it, any

more than the civil power possesses that aid, it is not necessary for any Catholic to believe; and I suppose, 

comparatively speaking, few Catholics do believe it: to be honest, I must say, I do; that is, under the conditions 

which the pope himself lays down in the declaration to which I have referred, his answer to the address of the Academia.

He speaks of his right 'to depose sovereigns, and release the people fromthe obligation of loyalty, a right which had

undoubtedly sometimes been exercised in crucial circumstances;' and he says: 'This right (diritto) in those ages of faith,-

(which discerned in the pope, what he is, that is to say, the Supreme Judge of Christianity, and recognized the advantages

of his tribunal in the great contests of peoples and sovereigns)-was freely extended,-(aided indeed as a matter of duty by 

the public law (diritto) and by the common consent of peoples)-to the most important (i piu gravi) interests of states and 

their rulers.' (Guardian, Nov. 11, 1874.)

Now let us observe how the pope restains the exercise of this right. He calls it his right-that is, in the sense in which 

right in one party is correlative with duty in the other, so that, when the duty is not observed, the right cannot be brought 

into exercise; and this is precisely what he goes on to intimate; for he lays down the conditions of that exercise. First it 

can only be exercised in rare and critical circumstances (supreme circonstanze, i piu gravi interessi). Next he refers to

his being the supreme judge of Christianity, and to his decision as coming from a tribunal: his prerogative, then, is not a 

mere arbitrary power, but must be exercised by a process of law and a formal examination of the case, and in the presence and

the hearing of the two parties interested in it. Also in this limitation is implied that the pope's definitive sentence 

involves an appeal to the supreme standard of right and wrong, the moral law, as its basis and rule, and must contain the 

definite reasons on which it decides in favor of the one party or the other. Thirdly, the exercise of this right is limited 

to the ages of faith; ages which, on the one hand, inscribed it among the provisions of the jus publicum, and on the other 

so fully recognized the benefits it conferred, as to be able to enforce it by the common consent of the peoples. These last

words should be dwelt on: it is no consent which is merely local, as of one country, of Ireland or of Belgium, if that were

porbable; but a united consent of various nations, of Europe, for instance, as a commonwealth, of which the pope was the 

head. Thirty years ago we heard much of the pope being made the head of an Italian confederation: no word came from England 

against such an arrangement. It was possible, because the members of it were all of one religion; and in like manner a 

European commonwealth would be reasonable, if Europe were one religion. Lastly, the pope declares with indignation that a 

pope is not infallible in the exercise of this right; such a notion is an invention of the enemy; he calls it 'malicious.'" 

(pp.46. 48)

As we read the declaration of the Supreme Pontiff in reply to the Address of the Academia, he asserts the right of the 

papacy, but confesses that in the present state of Christendom its exercise is impracticable: which is precisely what we 

ourselves have always maintained. Practically considered, the pope neither has nor claims to have the deposing power, and, 

in this sense, the first Bishop of Pittsburg was right when he said, in his controversy with us, that the claim is abandoned 

at Rome. It is abandoned, not as a right inherent in the papacy, as included in the supremacy of the pope, but as a power 

that as things now are, and are likely to be for a long time to come, cannot be practically exercised. This is Dr. Newman's

view in answer to Mr. Gladstone, and ought to allay the apprehensions of all those who pretend the papal supremacy is 

incompatible with civil allegiance.

Dr. Newman is quite right in denying that the pope in exercising the deposing power is infallible. The pope is infallible in 

teaching, but we do not understand that he claims to be infallible in governing. The pope cannot err as to the law, but he 

may err or make mistakes in its application to particular cases, where his only guide is human prudence. We accept, without

any reservation, Dr. Newman's statement on this point:

"In saying this, I am far from saying that popes are never in the wrong, and are never to be resisted, or that their 

excommunications always avail. I am not bound to defend the policy or the acts of particular popes, whether before or after 

the great revolt from their authority in the 16th century. There is no reason that I should contend, and I do not contend, 

for instance, that they at all times have understood our own people, our national character and resources, and our position 

in Europe; or that they have never suffered from bad counsellors or misinformation. I say this the more freely, because 

Urban VIII, about the year 1641 or 1642, blamed the policy of some popes of the preceding century in their dealings with 

our country."* (p.43)

The decree of the Council of the Vatican defining papal infallibility affects the question of the relation of the papacy 

to the civil power only in one single respect. It simply forbids Catholics to deny that what, in the Middle Ages, was 

called the temporal power of the popes is held by divine right, for all the popes who exercised it claimed to exercise 

it in the name of God, as successors of Peter and Vicars of Christ, and, if not infallible in its exercise, they are 

infallible in declaring the title by which they hold it, since that pertains to the domain of faith or doctrine. The 

definition of the papal infallibility adds nothing to the practical power of the pope, but it vindicates his right to 

exercise authority over kings and princes as over all other persons, and to apply to them the law of Got, to require 

them to rule justly, to respect the rights of God, which include the rights of the subject and the so-called rights 

of man, and to depose them and absolve their subjects from their allegiance, if they cannot otherwise be brought to 

respect the divine law in their government. The popes, we concede, do not possess the practical power, but what we 

contend is, that they do possess the right, and can no more abandon it or surrender it than they can the papacy itself.

The pope is not infallible in the government of the Church, but he holds his authority by divine right, and his 

authority is supreme, and no one can disobey or refuse to obey any command of his without disobedience to God. That in 

the exercise of his extreme powers the pope has made mistakes, is possible; that he has made mistakes, we do not think 

we have any right to say. Authority judges; it is not judged. Dr. Newman goes farther than we dare go. He is an 

Englishman, and obedience costs him something. He strikes us as somewhat stingy, if not in his actual obedience, at least 

in his avowals of his obligation to obey the sovereign pontiff, and takes care to reserve the right to disobey, when in 

his own privat judgment he thinks he ought not to obey. We do not understand this reserve. The pope is the Vicar of Christ,

who has all power in heaven and earth from his Father; and when the pope commands, it is ours to obey without any 

reservation. If a true Catholic, all we need know is, that the alleged command is given by the pope, and what it really 

means. We must obey as if from God himself, as Abraham showed himself ready to offer up his son Isaac at the divine 

command. Man has no rights against God his Creater, Proprietor, and consequently none against the Vicar of God.

The pope, however, is not even now without authority in temporals, hardly less than he had in the Middle Ages. His sentence 

of deposition against a sovereign prince would not now be executed, any more than it would have been under pagan Rome. 

Deposition was always an extreme measure, resorted to with extreme reluctance, and only after all other remedies were 

exhausted; and it has very seldom been resorted to at all, not more than once in a hundred years upon average. But the pope,

if he cannot now exercise that extreme power, can and does exercise his power as the supreme head of the whole body of the 

faithful. It is true he has no physical force at his command, and there is no nation that he can call upon to execute his 

orders; but he has a firmer support in the faith and conscience of Catholics, or the people of God. Catholics may disobey

the commands of the pope, as they may disobey the commands of God, but at the risk of their salvation; yet are they bound

in conscience to obey him, morally bound by his prescriptions, and  we are aware of no limits to this obligation.

Dr. Newman labors long and hard, while asserting the power of the pope, to show that they pope, as a matter of fact, rarely

interferes in the affairs of the Church, or makes his power felt, especially in temporal matters. Yet he ought to remember 

that all power in the Church emanates from God through the pope, the centre and fountain of all ecclesiastical authority. The

Church is papal, founded on Peter, not episcopal, as Anglicans hold. There is no authority in the Church that does not hold 

from the pope. I am bound to obey the pope, because, in obeying him, I am obeying God; and I am bound to obey my bishop or my 

parish priest, because, in obeying either, I am obeying the pope, the Vicar of God. Separated from the pope or unauthorized 

by him, I am bound, nay, forbidden, to obey either. we therefore do not agree with Dr. Newman that it is only on rare 

occasions that the pope interferes and makes his authority felt in the governement of the Church or of Catholics; nor do we 

think it well to try to keep the pope as much in the background as possible. It may be good policy, so far as concerns those 

who are prejudiced against the papacy, but we think the effect is bad, so far as concerns the faithful themselves. 

Gallicanism could hardly have arisen if the true papal constitution and character of the Church had been always brought out 

and fully insisted on. The apostasy of England, or, if you prefer, the loss of England to the Church, was due in a great

measure to the same cause. The English were never thoroughgoing papists. The pope was never for them the representatives of

the spiritual order. He was admitted, indeed, to be at the summit of the hierarchy, but not generally recognized as also at

its base. The church by the English people was not regarded as founded on Peter, but on the episcopacy, and simply completed

by the addition of the papacy. Hence an Englishman was capable of conceiving the suppression of the papacy, and the Church 

as remaining in all its essential elements. Indeed we can, or at least imagine we can, trace the germ of Anglicanism in the

Church in England from the Norman Conquest down. We hold it all-important, then, that the real power and office of the pope 

should be fully brought out and placed in the foreground. Thence it is we hail with so much joy and gratitude the Vatican

decrees defining the supremacy and infallibility of the pope. They bring out and place in an unmistakable light the 

essentially papal constitution and character of the Church. Papist is a title of honor, and we glory in it.

Though the pope has not, in the present state of hte world, of the nations which no longer constitute a Christian republic

governed by Christian principles, the practical power to depose sovereigns, he retains in principle all his rights, and 

exercises, in teaching and governing Catholics, his full supremacy, the same as if all the world were Catholic. That his

supremacy in its principle and the end for which he holds and exercises it is spiritual, is undeniable; but it is not true 

that its exercise has no temporal effects, and no bearing on the question of obedience to the state. We agree with Dr. 

Newman that the obedience I owe to the pope as the chief of my religion, does in no sense conflict with any duty I owe to 

the state; but this does not say that it never conflicts with any obedience the civil power from time to time does or may 

exact of me. We see the conflict of the two powers in some one country or another constantly occurring. There is this 

conflict now raging in Germany, and it raged most terribly in England and Ireland from the Reformation down nearly to our 

own times. England passed acts declaring hte profession and practice of the Catholic religion high-treason, and then 

hanged Catholics as traitors. Germany passes acts which deny the rights and freedom of the Church, and which no Catholic can

obey, which the pope declares null, and forbids Catholics to obey; and many bishops and priests are now suffering 

imprisonment and exile, because they obey the pope rather than the state. Now, if you assume with that quibbling lawyer, Sir

George Bowyer, that the state is independent in its order-and as nearly all statesmen and publicists assume-how can you 

maintain that the papal supremacy is in no respect incompatible with the allegiance Catholics owe to the civil power?

Dr. Newman does not, as we read him, meet this question fairly and squarely. Archbishop Manning meets it in principle, when 

he says, the subject "is bound to obey the civil government in all things not unlawful:" not forbidden by the law of God, we 

presume is meant. But this denies that civil allegiance is unlimited, and therefore denies the old heathen doctrine revived 

in the modern world,, namely, the omnipotence of the state. The papal supremacy, as held by Catholics, is not incompatible

with civil allegiance when that allegiance is understood, with its proper limitations, as suboridnate to the law of God; but 

when understood to be omnipotent, as it is claimed to be by your Bismarcks, Gladstones, most Protestants, and all despots,

it is, to a certain extent at least, incompatible with obedience to the state, for it limits or restricts it.

These limitations imposed by the law of God, but which the political atheism of the age treats with contempt, the pope 

insists on being observed by Catholics. They are equally obligatory on all, for the law of God is universal; but they cannot 

be enforced on anti-Catholic legislatures, for the pope, as we have said, has no means of enforcing their observance and

they are supported only by the fairth and conscience, of Catholics, and practically obeyed by Catholics only. There are 

numberous subjects over which the civile power claims jurisdiction, which belong to the jurisdiction of the Chruch, or 

spiritual power. Marriage, for instance. On the subject of marriage and divorce, the legislation of the state and the laws

of the Chruch are frequently in conflict; and, besides, as marriage is always res sacra, and, under the Christian law, a 

sacrament, the Church denies the right of the state to legislate on the question at all. The Church holds marriage to be 

indissoluble save by death. A Catholic legislator can neither defend civil marriage, nor legislate in favor of divorce. He

can do nothing against the laws of marriage, as defined by the Church, either for himself or for orthers. The Catholic must 

follow his Church, whatever laws respecting marriage the state may enact.

So of education. A system of education, which either admits no religion, or admits only a false religion, no Catholic can 

support. This is the reason why Catholics oppose our public schools. No doubt, much is said against these schools that is 

untrue or grossly exaggerated; and if the public were a Catholic public, and the Catholic religion made the basis of the 

education given in them, they would be all that we could ask for our children. Where the people are all of one religion,

common schools are practicable and desirable; but where a portion of the people are Catholics, and the rest are sectarians, 

and all have equal civil rights, they are impracticable, because either religion, the most essential part of all good 

education, must be exluded, or the rights of conscience and the equal rights of citizens be violated. We accept the

principle of the pulic-school system, that the property of the commonwealth should educate the children of the commonwealth;

but this is impracticable in common schools in a community divided as ours is. The attempt to do it fails, and tends only 

to secularize thought, and to create religious indifferentism. The supervision of education belongs to the religious body,

and the Church cannot surrender it to the civil power, any more than she can marriage itself. Hence, as the Church has no 

supervision of the public schools, and cannot teach her religion in them, she cannot permit Catholics, unless in exceptional

cases, to send their children and wards to them.

Mr. Gladstone evidently holds that he owes his party defeat and loss of office and power to the adverse votes of the Catholic

members of Parliament on the Irish University bill, and we owe, we presume, to his defeat his savage onslaught upon the 

papacy, and his attempt to extinguish Catholicity in Great Britain. He considers the papal supremacy as incompatible with civil

allegiance, because it has suffered Catholics to vote against his University bill, framed, in his judgment, in their

educational interests. We do not agree with Dr. Newman, that the pope had nothing to do with Mr. Gladston's defeat. He may 

not have personally and formally ordered the opposition, but the papacy defeated him, for the bishops, in opposing the bill, 

followed it and acted in accordance with its principles; and Catholics have no right to complain that the pope is held

responsible, as Chief Pastor, for their action, especially as he has not disclaimed it. But by what right does Mr. Gladstone

assume that loyalty to the Queen or the state required the Catholic Irish members of Parliament, or the Catholic bishops of

Ireland, to support his Irish University bill? We can detect no breach of loyalty or patriotism, in opposing a measure which 

promised no good either to religion or to politics. The measure was framed with rare unwisdom, and fitted to satisfy nobody.

In framing it, Mr. Gladstone overlooked the fixed and immutable nature of religion, and went on the supposition that 

principles in religion may be compromised, as they are int he British Constitution, which is no constitution at all, or a 

constitution with only one article, namely, the omnipotence of Parliament. Parliament may do anything but make a man a woman.

Mr. Gladstone's bill showed that he had no conception of true religious liberty, and no disposition to secure freedom of 

education to Catholics; and we understand not why Catholic bishops had not as much right to oppose it as he had to introduce 

and urge it.

But the opposition of the Catholic prelates to the bill, urged on Catholic grounds, shows, not that the papacy is incompatible 

with the civil allegiance of Catholics, but, as we have said, that it is incompatible with many things statesmen claim on the 

score of civil allegiance. While the state, as under Protestanism or Paganism, holds itself exempt from the law of God, or 

claims the right to interpret the law for itself, conflicts between the papacy and the civil power will arise, and , aat bottom,

of the same nature with that of the pope and emperor in the Middle Ages. The pope cannot now depose the emperor, but he can 

forbid Catholics to obey the emperor in any of his commands which require them to do wrong or to act against the law of God or 

their faith as Catholics, and they are bound to obey him at whatever peril, even to confiscation of goods, imprisonment, exile,

or death. The pope governs the Universal Church, and governs as if the whole world were Catholic, though only Catholics are

obedienct subjects of his government. But then he governs according to the Divine Law. He enjoins that law, and forbids 

whatever is contrary to it.

There is nothing in this that disturbs the constitution of the state or the action of the civil law; only that Catholics simply 

refuse to obey the civil power when it commands them to disobey God. Catholics can suffer wrong from the unjust action of the 

state, as they have proved by their submission to the most cruel persecutions in all ages and nations; but they cannot do wrong

at its command without forfeiting their Catholic character. We must obey God rather than men. Catholics are never seditious,

rebels, or revolutionists. They will not obey a Nero when he commands them to do what the law of God forbids them to do, nor

refrain at his order from doing what it commands them to do; but in all else they will cheerfully submit to his orders, and 

neither resist his power, nore conspire against his authority and seek to overthrow his government. Indeed, this submission 

of Catholics to the "powers that be," though unmitigated tyrants as many of the pagan Caesars were, is not seldom urged against 

Catholics as a reproach, as a proof of their tameness, want of spirit, and true manliness. Mr. Gladstone would have done better

to have charged Catholics, not with the want, but with an excess, of loyalty. Nothing can exceed their submission to authority,

or their devotion to the regularly established order. They are abused for this devotion, and much less opposition, would they 

meet if they were radicals, innovators, and revolutionists, seeking to turn the world upside-down, to throw all things into 

confusion, and make society a wild, weltering chaos.

In fact, it is this very respect, inspired by the Church, of Catholics for authority and their indisposition to conspire

against it, or to effect politcal and social reforms, or changes rather, by violence, that renders them so distasteful to the 

men of the world, and brings against the chief of our religion the charge of being hostile to "modern ideas" and "modern

civilization." Modern society is revolutionary, holds "the sacred right of insurrection," and pretends thatthe people, or

a disaffected portion of them, have not only the right to disobey the government, but to subvert it by violence, whenever they

see proper; and that they are not guilty of any crime or wrong-unless they fail. It is only unsuccessful conspiracy, rebellion, 

or revolution, that is censurable, according to modern ideas; and hence it is that civil governments can sustain themselves only 

by armed force. The governments of Europe require five millions of bayonets to defend them against their own subjects. Not one 

of them governs by moral power, or could stand twenty-four hours, if it were not backed by the army. Yet the Church is denounced 

as the enemy of society, and hostile to progress! How little do the Bismarcks, the Gladstones, and othersof their stamp, 

understand that the refusal of Catholics to obey the civil power when it commands them to do wrong, but not when it commands

them to suffer wrong, is the surest of all reliances for the free working and stability of civil government.