[British Critic, Oct. 1837]
M. F. DE LA Mennais has given us an account of what passed between him and the Papal See in 1831-1832, in a small volume entitled “Affaires de Rome.” It is a curious and instructive work; and, though coming from the pen of an acknowledged partisan, and therefore not implicitly to be trusted, it deals too largely in facts, and has too much the air of truth, not to demand the attention of all Churchmen. That great and ancient power, the Church Catholic, which dates her origin from the first preaching of the Gospel, which was founded by the Apostles, and which claims to be indissolubly connected with its fortunes, has been taken captive by her enemies, blinded, and set to servile employments—to make men good citizens, and to promote the enlightenment and comfort of the world; except when she is brought out of the prison-house on some great pageant, “to make sport,” to invest the institutions of earth with something of a religious character, and to pay homage to its mighty men, as her creators and governors. Such at least is M. de la Mennais’ opinion; and this is the curious circumstance, that the Roman Church, so high and apostolic, as her champions in these parts would represent her, so voluntary, so law-less, so unshackled, is after all, according to this foreign witness, but an established thing, up and down the countries in which she ought only to sojourn, not less or much more of a Law Church, practically, than our own. Indeed, the main difference between her and ourselves, taking him for our informant, seems to be this; that we have hitherto been well-treated, and Romanists ill-treated by the civil power;—that we have received bread, and have obeyed through gratitude; and they have been robbed and beaten, till they fawned upon their oppressors out of sheer exhaustion. Certainly, of the two, ours has been the better bargain. The consequences are natural; two parties at present wish our downfall; our ill-starred foreign brethren, in order to level us to themselves, and our own masters, to rival foreign spoliations. Whigs and Papists, the high and the low, combine, the one from ambition, the other from envy; the one cry out, “I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit upon the mount of the congregation:” and the others begin to say, “Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?”
M. de la Mennais’s book then is curious and instructive, as setting before us the actual state of the Roman Communion, both ecclesiastically and morally; and, in consequence, as holding out to us some warning of what may come on ourselves. It is curious, moreover, as indicating the existence of a party within it, at variance with the present policy of its rulers, living upon historical recollections and ancient principles, and ripe for insurrection. Moreover, it is curious as exhibiting the principles of this insurgent party, which is faithful to the same mixture of truth and error, right and bad feeling, which has been the inheritance of its church for many centuries. It will be our endeavour to put the Abbé’s volume before the reader in some of these various lights.
1.
When good churchmen in England have of late years, in our presence, exclaimed against the various successful encroachments of the State upon that liberty which was their birthright, it has been our wont to counsel them patience, by referring to the state of the Greek Church, in which the Great Turk, a mere heathen, or rather an antichrist, appoints the patriarch; under the feeling that we had no right to complain as yet, when our rulers were appointed, not by pagans, but only by schismatics, latitudinarians, profligates, socinians, and infidels. But the work before us suggests comfort nearer home; the poor Gallican Church is in a captivity, not only doctrinal, which we all know, but ecclesiastical, far greater than ours. M. de la Mennais mentions the following instances of it.
In 1801, Buonaparte, as Consul, negotiated a concordat with the Pope, by which the government had secured to it the right of presenting to the French sees, on the condition of its “professing the Catholic religion.” 1 It was stipulated, at the same time, that if the Consuls or their successors ever ceased such profession, a new concordat should settle the mode of nomination. This arrangement was acknowledged and acted on under the Restoration, the kings being, by profession, “most Christian,” and guardians of Catholicism. But after the events of the Three Days, the State could no longer fulfil its own part of the compact. Louis Philippe was king “by the grace of the people;” and was obliged, according to one of the fundamental principles of the Revolution, whatever he might be in his own person, to become, at least in profession, of no particular religion. It follows, in our author’s words,—that “the government had no longer the right to present to the sees; and the danger was obvious of allowing ministers, who might be Deists, Protestants, Jews, or Infidels, to choose the successors of the Apostles of Jesus Christ.” 2 However, the government continues to appoint the bishops as before; and has availed itself of its privilege, to introduce into the hierarchy persons who have justified the fears, with which such a prerogative naturally inspired all pious men 3.