morality is conjoined. But this is not the same thing as to interfere directly in political affairs, which, by the order established by God and by the teaching of the Church herself, appertains to the temporal power without dependence on any other authority. The subordination also of the civil to the religious power is in the sense of the pre-eminence of the sacerdotium over the imperium, because of the superiority of the end of the one over that of the other.1 Hence the authority of the imperium depends on that of the sacerdotium, as human things on divine, temporal on spiritual. And if temporal happiness, which is the end of the civil power, is subordinate to eternal beatitude, which is the spiritual end of the sacerdotium, it follows that in order to reach the end to which it has pleased God to direct them, the one power is subordinate to the other. Their powers (I say) are respectively subordinate in the same way as the ends to which they are directed.

It results from these principles that, if the infallibility of the Church extends also (not, however, in the sense indicated by the French despatch) to all that is necessary to preserve intact the deposit of Faith, no harm is thereby done to science, history, or politics. The prerogative of infallibilty is not an unknown fact in the Catholic world; the supreme magisterium of the Church has dictated in every age rules of faith, without the internal order of States being thereby affected (risentirsene), or princes being disquieted thereat; rather, wisely appreciating the influence which such rules have on the good order of civil society, these have been themselves, from time to time, the vindicators and defenders of the doctrines defined, and have promoted, by the concurrence of the royal power, their full and respectful observance.

It follows, moreover, that if the Church was instituted by its Divine Founder as a true and perfect society, distinct from the civil power and independent of it, with full authority in the triple order, legislative, judicial, and coercive, no confusion springs therefrom in the march of human society, and in the exercise of the rights of the two powers. The competence of the one and the other is clearly distinct and determined, according to the end to which they are respectively directed. The Church does not, in virtue of her authority, intervene directly and absolutely in the constitutive principles of governments, in the forms of civil regulations, in the political rights of citizens, in the duties of the State, and in the other points indicated in the minister's note. But, whereas, no civil society can subsist without a supreme principle regulating the morality of its acts

We have no exact English equivalents for the abstract terms-sacerdozio, impero. Sacerdozio," means the priestly office, and " impero" civil authority, in the most general sense.—(Note of Tr.)

and laws, the Church has received from God this lofty mission, which tends to the happiness of the people; while she in no way embarrasses, by the exercise of this her ministry, the free and prompt action of governments. She, in fact, by inculcating the principle of rendering to God that which is God's, and to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's, imposes at the same time upon her children the obligation of obeying the authority of princes for conscience-sake. But these should also recognise that if anywhere a law is made opposed to the principles of eternal justice, to obey would not be a giving to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's, but a taking from God that which is God's.

I proceed now to say a word on the profound impression which the minister expects will be made throughout the world by the mere enunciation of the principles developed in the draft of constitution which forms the object of his despatch. In truth, it is not easy to persuade oneself how the doctrines contained in that draft, and understood in the sense above pointed out, can produce the profound impression of which the minister speaks; unless indeed their spirit and character be wrested, or that he speaks of those who, professing principles different from those professed by the Catholic Church, cannot of course approve of such principles being inculcated and sanctioned afresh. I say afresh: because the doctrines contained in that document, as I have already remarked, far from being new and unheard, embrace no more (non sono nel loro complesso) than the reproduction of the Catholic teaching professed in every age and in every Church, as will be solemnly proved by all the pastors of the Catholic name, called by the head of the hierarchy to bear authentic witness, in the midst of the Council, to the faith and traditions of the Church Universal. It is to be hoped rather that the Catholic doctrine, once more solemnly confirmed by the Fathers of the Vatican Council, will be greeted by the faithful people as the rainbow of peace and the dawn of a brighter future. The object of confirming those doctrines is no other than to recall to modern society the maxims of justice and virtue, and thus to restore to the world that peace and prosperity which can only be found in the perfect keeping of the divine law. This is the firm hope of all honest men, who received with joy the announcement of the Council; this is the conviction of the Fathers of the Church, who have assembled with alacrity in such numbers at the voice of the Chief Pastor; this is the prayer which the Vicar of Jesus Christ is always sending up to God in the midst of the grievous troubles which surround his Pontificate.

For the rest, I do not understand why the bishops should have to renounce their episcopal authority in consequence of the definition of Pontifical Infallibility. This prerogative is not only as ancient as the Church herself, but has been, moreover, always exercised in the Roman Church, without the divine authority and the rights conferred by God on the pastors of the Church being thereby altered in the least degree. Its definition, therefore, would in no way go to change the relations between the bishops and their head. The rights of the one and the prerogatives of the other are well defined in the Church's divine constitution; and the confirmation of the Roman Pontiff's supreme authority and magisterium, far from being prejudicial to the rights of bishops, will furnish a new support to their authority and magisterium, since the strength and vigour of the members is just so much as comes to them from the head.

By parity of reason-the authority of the pastors of the Church being strengthened anew by the solemn confirmation of Pontifical Infallibility-that of princes, especially Catholic princes, will be no less strengthened. The prosperity of the Church and the peace of the State depend upon the close and intimate union of the two supreme powers. Who does not see then that the authority of princes not only will not receive any blow from the Pontifical supremacy, but will instead find therein its strongest support? As sons of the Church they owe obedience, respect, and protection to the authority placed on earth by God to guide princes and peoples to the last end of eternal salvation; nor can they refuse to recognise that royal power has been granted them for the defence also and guardianship of Christian society. But by the very fact of the principle of authority receiving new vigour in the Church and in its head, the sovereign power must necessarily receive a new impulse, since it has from God a common origin, and consequently common interests also. And so, if the wickedness of the age, by separating the one from the other, has placed both in troublesome and painful conditions, to the great injury of human society, closer relations will unite both in indissoluble bonds for the defence of the grand interests of religion and society, and will prepare for them the way to a brighter and more prosperous future.

From what has been said up to this point it results clearly that the Council has not been called to discuss political interests, as the despatch of Count Daru seems to indicate. We may conclude, therefore, that the French Government, finding no longer a sufficient reason for departing from the line of conduct it had set itself to follow in respect of the

Council, will not desire to insist on the request for communication of the Decrees which will be submitted to the examination and discussion of the venerable assembly of bishops. On which point indeed, it occurs to me to observe that the right claimed for his purpose by the minister on the ground of the Concordat in force between the Holy See and France, cannot, in my opinion, find any support in that act. In the first place, no special mention of this particular point is found in the articles of that convention. Then, further, the relations of Church and State on points belonging to both powers (punto di mista competenza) having been regulated by the Concordat, the decisions, which may be come to by the Vatican Council on such matters, will in no way alter the special stipulations made by the Holy See, as well with France as with other governments, as long as these place no obstacles in the way of the full keeping of the conditions agreed upon. I may also add, that if the Holy See has not thought fit to invite Catholic princes to the Council, as it did on other occasions, every one will easily understand that this is chiefly to be attributed to the changed circumstances of the times. The altered state of the relations between the Church and the Civil Governments has made more difficult their mutual action in the regulation of things religious.

I desire, however, to hope that the Government of his Majesty the Emperor, fully satisfied with the explanations given by me in the name of the Holy See to the various points of Count Daru's despatch, and recognising at the same time. the difficulties in which the Holy Father might find himself, will not insist further on the demand of communication beforehand of the drafts of constitutions to be examined by the Fathers of the Council. Were such demand conceded, there would be question of things tending to embarrass the free action of the Council. Moreover, since the Church is keeping within the limits assigned to her by her Divine Founder, no anxiety need remain to the Government of his Majesty on account of the deliberations which may come to be adopted by the Episcopal assembly. Finally, the French Government will thus give, by the very fact, a new proof of those dispositions of good will which it has manifested in respect of the full liberty of the Conciliar deliberations, and of the confidence which it declares it reposes in the wisdom and prudence of the Apostolic See.

Your Lordship will please read this despatch to Count Daru, as also leave him a copy.

Meanwhile receive, &c., &c.,

THE IRISH

ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

FEBRUARY, 1875.

THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS.

Our Lady's Dowry; or, How England Gained and Lost that Title. A Compilation, by the Rev. T. E. BRIDGETT, of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. London, Burns and Oates, 1875.

A Handbook to the Romish Controversy: being a Refutation in Detail of the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, on the grounds of Scripture and Reason. By CHARLES STUART STANFORD, D.D. Dublin, 1870.

As in the midst of that Paradise of pleasure which the Lord God planted in the beginning, stood queen-like the Tree of Life, by eating of whose fruit man would have lived for ever, so in this Paradise of the Church, planted by God in the fulness of time, reigns the Virgin Mary, whose fruit is THE LIFE, believing in Which, and eating of Which, we shall live for ever. She is evidently a Tree of Life-yes, and a Tree of Knowledgefair to the eyes and delightful to behold, for The Life is The Truth and The Way, for her Son is The Word of God. Thus, with Don Vincenzo Tuzi, we explain our devotion to the Mother of God, prizing the Tree for sake of the Fruit, the Mother for sake of the Son. This is the light which many that have eyes do not, or will not, see. That some of those many may be freed from the scales of blindness, these lines are written in review of the latest contribution of the learned Redemptorist, Father Bridgett, to the Catholic literature of his country and the world. His opening quotation from Archbishop Arundel (1399) is most appropriately placed, explaining as it does the title of the work, and containing as it does the very pith of Marian Theology-in other words, the explanation given by us above, and given in thousands of works by thousands of theologians—which, nevertheless, will be ignored, corrupted, and misrendered by the so-called Evangelicals, until

VOL. XI.

14