(Actes Ecclés. et Civ. de tous les Synodes Nation. de l'Eglise Réformée de France, t. i. pp 58, 221).

8 Synod of Vitré, 1582; Assembly of Montauban, 1.c. pp. 160, 176. Franc. Turrettini, Instit. Theol. p. iii. q. 22, de Vocat. Pastor. § 18. Cf. Bianchi, t. i. 1. iii. § 1, n. 6, pp. 442, 443.

• Döllinger, A. Z. 1.c.

10 Fénélon, de Summi Pontif. Auctorit. c. xxxiv. t. ii. p. 861, ed. Vers. "Congr. Cleri Gall. Collect. des Procès-verbaux, t. vi. Pièces Justificatives, pp. 505, 506.

"Roscovány, Rom. Pontif. ii. p. 62 seq.

13 Const. Auctorem Fidei, n. 11. Denzinger, Enchir. p. 391, n. 1374.

§ 12.

'It rests finally with us theologians,' says Friedrich,1 to decide whether the Council be ecumenical or no. I answer for it that as an Ecumenical Council it will be disowned.' Naturally enough the Vatican Council did not submit to the guidance of such theologians as these.

But what sort of theologians are they? They are theologians. who have all but copied the book of the apostate Archbishop de Dominis, which was an object of indignation and disgust to all Catholics in his day, and even to Gallicans. The independent 'German theologians' are come to this, that they bring forward heretical wares as being 'genuinely Catholic.' They are liberal theologians, who are entirely under the dominion of so-called 'public opinion," who bow before the reigning spirit of the world, who desire to strip the Church of her divine character,3 and who, in the place of her supernatural certainty, desire a purely natural moral certainty springing from universal testimony. To obtain this no supernatural aid of the Holy Ghost is needful but woe to the Church, the Bride of Christ, if everchanging public opinion' were able to triumph over her! The description given by Tournely (1729)5 holds good of these liberal theologians: 'The authority of the Church dispersed throughout the world (Ecclesia dispersa) is disowned, and to a General Council alone-which is itself made subject to the judgment of individuals, and is not in truth acknowledged-is appeal made as the highest judge in cases of dispute. The sacred dignity of Pope and bishop is violated; simple priests are placed almost on a level with bishops; the right of private judgment in matters.

of faith is claimed and usurped, not merely by simple priests, but even in the most insolent manner by laymen; the Church is represented as so completely shrouded in darkness, that scarcely a faint spark of light seems to be left within her.'

1 Journal, p. 203; also p. 345: he wrote, that in fact the Council could no longer be spoken of as ecumenical, although, alas, the bishops could not be quite clear on the subject.

2 Gioberti (La Riforma Politica, Torino, 1856, p. 54): La dittatura dell' opinione, e quindi dell' ingegno ha luogo nella Chiesa come nello stato. In virtù dell' opinione i fedeli hanno un potere sulla gerarchia. Dall' opinione dipende la signoria estragerarchica dell' ingegno nella società cristiana; ma non è mai antigerarchica. In ogni società oltre i poteri ordinarii è necessario un potere straordinario. Questo è creato dall' opinione e fondato su di essa. L'ite docete è detto anchi ai laici. Il laicato lo esercita ora col commercio, ora colle conquiste.' Dr. Döllinger expressed much the same idea in his speech, Sept. 28, 1863 (Verhandlungen der Kath. Gelehrtenversammlung in München, p. 47), when he pointed out public opinion as the extraordinary power existing in the Church side by side with the ordinary power, and which he likened to the race of prophets amongst the Hebrews.

6

* Humanum conari Ecclesiam facere;' Cypr. Ep. 52, ad Antonian. Cf. Historisch-polit. Blätter, vol. lxvi. p. 508.

....

5 Du Plessis, D'Argentré Collect. Judic. t. iii. P. i. pp. 179, 180. Tournely, ibid. p. 183: Hoc statuimus et contendimus, . . . . legem publica et legitima auctoritate latam firmam ex sese et inconcussam esse debere, nec privato cuicunque, ut eam infirmet, fas esse inquirere in examen modum et motivum, quo lata est (Can. de loc. v. 5, quoted). . . . . Quodcunque supponatur legis motivum, fieri numquam posse, vi promissionum Christi, ut Ecclesia erroneam acceptet et approbet sententiam. Ergo legis literae, quae sola subsistit et vim habet, standum est ac supponendum, ne ulla deesset ex requisitis conditio ad firmam, certam et inconcussam definitionem.'

PART III. THE HOPES OF OUR OPPONENTS.

§ 1. A new and freer' Council. § 2. Döllinger's proposal. § 3. Pretended warfare of the Church against the State. § 4. Excommunication. § 5. The Council a test of States. § 6. The heathen State and State omnipotence.

§ 1.

Throughout the opposition literature the hope was expressed of a new Ecumenical Council,' really free in discussion, which should do away with the Vatican Council of 1870. Yet this hope was over and over again checked by the harmony of the assembled bishops, ever plainly expressed, and it must have been

acknowledged from the beginning to be a delusion by all who understood the subject. 'Never,' wrote Bossuet on a certain occasion to Leibnitz, will an example be found of a definition once made being deprived of its power by posterity.'

Our opponents say that a new free Council should be assembled; the governments of States should compel the Pope to do this for the avowed purpose of revoking the new dogma, and declaring the Vatican Council of no account.' This, then, would be a really free Council! And it should be held in Germany, whither the bishops of the Latin race would either come in small numbers, or not at all. That would indeed be a universal Council! And, moreover, appeal is made in the case of Bavaria to the Religionsedikt, § 56, by which the ruler has the right, if divisions arise in any religious denomination, of causing an ecclesiastical assembly to be held, but the concluding sentence is ignored, without mixing himself up in matters of religious doctrine.'

Some have cherished the hope that the successor of the present Pope might set aside the offensive portions of the decrees of Pius IX.,' and the recognition of the Prussian monarchy, refused by Clement XII., but granted by Benedict XIV., has been brought forward as a precedent; but this shows as little conception of the dogmas and essence of the Catholic religion as the notion that the same end might be obtained by imposing certain conditions on the newly elected Pope. Reasonable, from a human point of view, was the hope of the Revolution that the Papacy was buried with Pius VI., and the expectation that the power and cunning of men would put a stop to any future Papal election, or at least render it doubtful or invalid ; but, seen by the light of the Catholic faith, this hope is idle. Catholics rely on the promises of our Lord, who will not withdraw His aid from His Bride, nor suffer the rock of Peter to fall to ruins. But the less they mix themselves up in the concerns of other religions, the more annoying to them is the way in which men who have not the slightest call to interfere, and who would never dream of obeying the Pope, still insist upon considering the future Papal election as their own affair.

1 Berchtold, p. 10; Friedrich, Journal, p. 343; and others.

2 The following appeared in the Allgemeine Zeitung, June 5, 1872: 'We have hitherto spoken only of the possible influence of the European powers on the next Papal election, and of the conditional acknowledgment of the new Pope by the German empire. But what if it should come to pass that there is no valid election? Would not the thousand years old, the "wonderful" organisation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy fall completely all to pieces, so that side by side with the Gallican Church we should necessarily see national Churches in Italy, Spain, and Germany professing the Catholic faith, but existing independently and without any compulsory legislation?'

$2.

When the declaration of Fulda, published by the majority of the German bishops, became known, the design of holding a Council on this side the Alps was felt to be impossible. Therefore Dr. Döllinger, in his declaration, appealed from the bishops ill educated to the bishops better educated, or in reality to public opinion, since he demanded that a conference should be held before the assembled bishops, or before a committee of the cathedral chapter of Munich, at which a government official should be present as a witness; or he promised to submit to the judgment of the most distinguished of German historical critics.

But it is precisely from history that we learn how fruitless such disputations and conferences have ever been. Huss and Luther also professed themselves ready to retract, if only they were met with clear and convincing arguments. Take as an example the disputation at Leipzig, where each party claimed the victory. This shows us that although the evidence before us is (objectively) convincing, we may, if we choose, refuse to be (subjectively) convinced. Again, is a conference or a disputation to be of greater weight than a definition of faith pronounced by a General Council? or is it to overthrow an Ecumenical Council? In the Protestant movement of 1517, the Humanists were dragged into the fray; and now, in the new Protestant movement of 1871, the historians are dragged in, and are made to decide in a matter of faith; for with such are we dealing, and not simply with an historical question, as Döllinger with the Protestant Hase supposes.

$ 3.

What, then, is the contest which must now be fought out?' asked the Counsellor of the Court of Appeal, Von Enhuber, at Munich, September 23, 1871; and he forthwith received the answer: 'It is no other than a contest of the Church against the State." But were not these the words of the Jansenists and other sects, who gave out that their desire was to defend the State against the Church? How has the Church too much power, especially when her Head is oppressed as he is now? Who can point to a single act of aggression on the part of the Church? Is it possible to consider as such the dogma of Infallibility, which has to do purely with matters of faith? and does not the mere attempt to prove it such involve gross misrepresentation of the dogma? When the peace between Church and State is troubled, the disturbance is not begun by the Church. Can it be said that the Pope did so, when he deelined diplomatic interference in questions of dogma? or the Council, when with an immense majority it pronounced a purely ecclesiastical decree? or Catholics, who, in obedience to their ancient faith, submitted to the highest authority in the Church, and made themselves answerable for her just rights, which were threatened by open foes, and by others secret, but soon to be unmasked? or the priests, who have defended the freedom of religious profession, and the rights of their Church, for the most part at the cost of great sacrifice, while those amongst their brethren who were untrue to the Church, and therefore excluded from her, were taken under the protection of the State, and sometimes loaded with honours besides? And are Catholics alone to hold their peace in the face of intrigues against Pius IX. and against the future Papal election, though their aim be nothing less than endangering to the utmost the freedom of conscience of many millions of Catholics, for the sake of a small number of apostates? are they to hold their peace when all that is sacred is dragged in the dust, when absurd caricatures are hailed with delight, when the police are called in on all occa

VOL. I.

M