MR. GLADSTONE'S RIDICULOUS INCONSISTENCY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 95, 20 February 1875, Page 13

MR. GLADSTONE'S RIDICULOUS INCONSISTENCY.

{To the Editor of the 'London Times') Sib — Four years and some months have elapsed since the Vatican Council. During that period, down to last February, Mr. Gladstone was First Minister of the Crown, and leader of a powerful party. "Why did he not, in his place in the House of Commons, call attention to portentous matters which he published last Saturday regarding the effect of the decrees of that Council on the allegiance of Her Majesty's Boman Catholic subjects and the security of the realm ? "Why did he not propose some measure to Parliament calculated to meet the dangers which now alarm him ? During all the time referred to he held his peace, and he gladly received Eoman Catholic support in Parliament and the country. Since the Council, the Pope (who, Mr. Gladstone says, owes gratitude to the Italian Government) has been dethroned, and all his dominions and the property have been reduced to a palace, a church, and a garden, while the churches and religious bodies of Rome, and all Italy have been oppressed and spoliated. In Germany, the Church has been subjected to rigorous penal laws and confiscations. There iB everywhere an active, powerful, bold, yet subtle propagandism, in many forms, which threatens the foundations not only of the Eoman Catholic faith, but of all revealed religion. Never was there less danger of spiritual or sacerdotal domination than at present, when the whole current of prevalent opinion and thought, and feeling, and literature sets strongly in the opposite direction. Yet this is the opportunity chosen by Mr. Gladstone to alarm the country in violent language with a "No Popery" cry, denouncing his Eoman Catholic fellow-subjects as disloyal and dangerous persons. Would Mr. Gladstone .have published this unaccountable diatribe if he were still the popular leader of a Parliamentary majority and successful chief of a great 1 party ? I will not enter on the topics which this question suggests, nor will I engage in controversy on the almost infinite points of history, law, theology, casuistry, and politics embraced by the expostulation. But I assert, with our archbishop, that the aHegiance of Catholics — nay, Vltramontanes — is as undivided, and their obedience to the temporal law as complete, as those of Protestants who believe the paramount obligation of Itivine and moral law. The only difference is that the rule of faith with Protestants is private judgment and that of Roman Catholic is the infallible voice of spiritual authority, which we believe to be under Divine guidance. | I also assert that the decree of the Council has made no change whatever affecting civil allegiance. For, whether infallibility be exercised by the Pope ex cathedra or by the Pope in Council, its essential nature and extent are precisely the same ; and that' infallibility is confined to dogmatic decrees defining that which the Church holds in faith and morals, and does not extend to political or ecclesiastical acts. So the doctrine of obedience, which alarms Mr. Gladstone, only extends to matters relating to the discipline and government of the Chnrch — qua ad disciplinam et regimen JEcchsice pertinent — and in this respect the decree of the Council is strictly and entirely declaratory of the ancient, immemorial, and perpetual law of the Church. I deny that my loyalty and my patriotism differ in any respect from those of Protestants ; and understanding allegiance according to the common law ["Co. Litt.," 129a-7; Rep. Calvin's case, " Blackstone," 1 Com., chap, x.], I repudiate the notion of allegiance to any foreign authority. Temple, November 9. GfeoBCW Bo'wykb.