these resisted. Of course some resisted, for such is human nature. But there is this most notable circumstance, never to be forgotten; they were always wrong, and the Pope was always right not once, but always. In all the great controversies of the primitive church, those about Easter, the Baptism of heretics, and the penitential discipline, we at this day are living on the doctrinal victory of Rome. What becomes now of the assertion of Janus, that the Popes were unable to carry out their own views? For a time men rebelled but the Popes were right, and the Church came to see that they were right; and that what they merely tolerated, as they tolerate Gallicanism now, was wrong. All the men of talent of the Church, all the men of science and progress, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen,* were condemned, as a philosophical German might be now. The growls of Tertullian over a decree of Pope Zephyrinus, and his ironical contempt for the title of Bishop of Bishops, are at once a proof that the voice of the Sovereign Pontiff reached beyond the limits of his own local Church, and that the flippant contemptuousness of Janus has not even the merit of originality.

We say some resisted. If, however, the legend of Prudentius represents any truth, Hippolytus submitted before he died. Above all, if S. Dionysius did not retract in the same formal terms as men would do now, even the fragments of his letter prove the enormous influence of the condemnation of the Pope on his doctrinal expressions. What can Janus possibly mean by his assertion, that the Letter of S. Dionysius of Rome exercised no influence whatever on the later course of the controversy? One might almost say, on the contrary, that it was the one human means, whereby the controversy issued throughout the Church in the Nicene definition. The Pontiff's Letter simply determined the teaching of Alexandria in favour of the Homoousion; and to the teaching of Alexandria the Church owes Athanasius.+

At last however, there is so much obscurity in various details of the ante-Nicene era, and again there were so many circumstances which impeded free communion between Pope and bishops, that one can in some sense understand a violently prejudiced and angry controversialist not understanding what was then the real position of the Holy See. But Janus actually uses similar language in regard to the post-Nicene centuries. He says gravely (p. 478) that "for the first thousand years no Pope ever issued a doctrinal decision intended for and addressed to the whole Church." Again (p. 407), "no single decree of a Pope addressed to the whole Church is known for the first thousand years of Christian history." He adds

* As Dr. Döllinger thinks by a separate synod under Pontian, 259. + As to the dogmatic work done at Rome in ante-Nicene times, see our number for April, 1868, pp. 337-339; and for last January, pp. 66-68.

that Boniface VIII.'s Bull" Unam Sanctam," in 1303, is "the first addressed to the whole Church."

Now what can be intended by this last sentence? The "Unam Sanctam" is not formally addressed to the whole Church, but is headed "in perpetuam rei memoriam." Janus then must

actually mean, that this Bull was the first doctrinal pronouncement, ever issued by a Pontiff with an intention of teaching the whole Church obligatory doctrine. Incredible! We are sure no such statement was ever made before by Catholic, Protestant, or Infidel.* As we have been obliged for room's sake to make a selection out of his topics, we have reserved no space for duly replying to such an allegation as this. To refute it would be simply (one may say) to reprint the whole treatises of Orsi and Muzzarelli.+ We will cite but two instances: and firstly we will adduce the profession of faith exacted by S. Hormisdas of the Eastern bishops as a condition of communion, from which we have already given an extract. That profession begins with stating that "to preserve the rule of right faith is the commencement of salvation"; and that, in accordance with Christ's "Tu es Petrus,' religion has ever been preserved without defilement in the Apostolic See." "Wherefore," it presently continues, "we receive and approve all the Letters of Pope Leo concerning the Christian religion";

"following in all things the Apostolic See, and preaching all her Constitutions." It is very certain therefore, that these "Letters of Pope Leo" and "Constitutions of the Holy See" claimed assent from the whole Church. Then turn from this to a Letter of Pope Vigilius's to the Greek Emperor, which Orsi gives at length. After having recited various Letters of his predecessors, S. Leo, S. Hormisdas, S. Agapetus, which had never been placed before any Ecumenical Council, the Pope thus proceeds :

With regard then to those things which have been defined concerning the Faith by the Fathers of the four holy Synods, and by the before-mentioned Letters of Pope Leo of happy memory and the Constitutions of our venerable predecessors-condemning, by the authority of the Apostolic See, those who do not follow these in every particular (per omnia non sequentes), and who

Yet since this article was first in type, something not dissimilar has been alleged by Mr. Renouf. See our notice of his new pamphlet in our present number.

"Tota mea argumentatio fundatur in duobus factis historicis, quæ proculdubio extra omnem controversiam posita sunt. . . . . Primum factum constat ex historiâ ecclesiasticâ usque ab antiquissimâ ætate quod Romani Pontifices sæpius. . . . . libellos et professiones fidei a singulis episcopis subscribendas indixerunt, vel decreta et constitutiones de Fide ediderunt per universam Ecclesiam cum præcepto obediendi ad omnes episcopos directo." Muzzarelli, de Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, c. xii. sec. 4.

oppose their doctrines,―we anathematize those who shall have attempted either perversely to dispute or faithlessly to doubt concerning the exposition or rectitude of that Faith; and we sever from the unity of the Catholic Faith persons, who think against those things concerning the Faith which are contained in the most holy Synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and in the above-mentioned Letters of our predecessor Leo of happy memory, or all those things which his authority sanctioned (lib. i., c. 19, art. 2).

Here then are various Letters and Constitutions of various Popes, which a Pope places on precisely the same level with the definitions of an Ecumenical Council; anathematizing all those, who will not humbly submit to them "in all things." At one stroke of the pen, so to speak, he holds up both the Letter he is now writing and the various Letters of his predecessors there recited, as obliging the interior assent of all Catholics under the penalty of an anathema. But in real truth, through the whole post-Nicene period, Pontifical dogmatic Letters issued ex cathedrâ are no less undeniable and no less obtrusive matters of historical fact, than are Ecumenical Councils themselves: they meet the student at every page.

We should ourselves maintain of course, that during this whole period these Apostolic Letters played a far more important part than Councils themselves in preserving purity of faith. But the Gallican controversy is not to our purpose, when arguing against so simply anti-Catholic a writer as Janus.

As to the work before us, we have confined our remarks to one particular subject, because in no other way could we hope to arrive at any effective result. Of its general drift we will only say, that nothing can be feebler or more irrelevant than its reiterated complaints about literary forgery. The simple question is, whether, in any given period of the Church's history, Popes were contending for any higher position than was theirs by divine appointment. Catholic writers have again and again assigned reasons for giving a negative answer to this question, and Janus leaves those reasons untouched. But, as F. Ryder has excellently pointed out in his "Critique," in an uncritical age it will be constantly happening, that where some spurious document is perfectly orthodox in doctrine, neither a Pope nor any one else has the slightest ground for doubting its genuineness. Indeed, Janus's argument may be retorted against himself. For the more you dwell on the ease with which these spurious documents obtained credence, the more singularly remarkable becomes the fact, that no Pope has ever been led by any such forgery to assume any prerogative, which cannot be satisfactorily defended by genuine testimonies.

We have not troubled ourselves with the question of Janus's

personal history. We will only say, in agreement with the "Month," that we find it very difficult to suppose that so indubitably and extensively learned a man as Dr. Döllinger can be mixed up with so poor and feeble a production. But an English Catholic is more concerned with Janus's English translator and approvers. And certainly, if we desired a strong defence for that particular in our public conduct which has been most vehemently assailed, we should rejoice in the attendant circumstances of this case. We have always maintained, that there is an organized, though small, band of professing Catholics in England, who are as truly enemies to the Church as avowed Protestants can be; and who are immeasurably more dangerous than avowed Protestants, from the very fact that Catholics in general are not duly on their guard against them. The one member of this party whom we have been most often obliged to name, is Mr. Oxenham. What is that gentleman's present position? He comes before the public as sponsor for a work, which openly denies the Church's corporate unity, and counts Anglicans and Photians as her members. There are probably indeed not five soi-disant Catholics in England who would go the whole way with him in whitewashing Janus. But there are many more than five, who are more or less leavened with the same spirit; and those few unhappy Catholic parents, who send their sons to Oxford, do all they possibly can towards diffusing the poison more widely. Such facts as the Coblentz address, says the Archbishop,

Prove that in the Catholic Church there is a school at variance with the doctrinal teaching of the Holy See in matters which are not of faith. But they do not reveal how small that school is. Its centre would seem to be at Munich; it has, both in France and in England, a small number of adherents. They are active, they correspond, and, for the most part, write anonymously. It would be difficult to describe its tenets, for none of its followers seem to be agreed in all points. Some hold the infallibility of the Pope, and some defend the Temporal Power. Nothing appears to be common to all, except an animus of opposition to the acts of the Holy See in matters outside the Faith.

In this country, about a year ago, an attempt was made to render impossible, as it was confidently but vainly thought, the definition of the infallibility of the Pontiff, by reviving the monotonous controversy about Pope Honorius. Later we were told of I know not what combination of exalted personages in France for the same end. It is certain that these symptoms are not sporadic and disconnected, but in mutual understanding and with a common purpose. The anti-Catholic press has eagerly encouraged this school of thought. If a Catholic can be found out of tune with authority by half a note, he is at once extolled for unequalled learning and irrefragable logic. The anti-Catholic journals are at his service, and he vents his opposition to the common opinions of the Church by writing against them anonymously (p. 32).

In regard then to Janus and his approvers, we have maintained that they are no more Catholics in their belief than are Dean Stanley and Professor Jowett. They deny the Church's corporate unity, and they deny the infallibility of the Church in communion with Rome. We need hardly say that the change is most violent, from such thinkers as these, to the three French writers whom we have named at the head of our article. These hold most firmly, as of faith, that every ex cathedrâ utterance of the Supreme Pontiff is infallible, when tacitly accepted by the bishops of his communion. And their general tone also towards the Holy See and the Church, whatever else may be said of it, stands out in broadest opposition to that of Janus. Nevertheless, as it seems to us, they aim at so fundamental and revolutionary a change in the Church's practical organization, that it is important to place their view distinctly before our readers.

Mgr. Dupanloup is of course immeasurably the most weighty of the three, because of his great and most justly deserved influence over Catholics throughout the world. We make no apology for criticising his work with perfect freedom, though (we trust) with all the respect due to so illustrious a person. Mgr. Dupanloup himself both communicated it to the newspapers and has circulated it also as a pamphlet, with an avowed view of influencing Catholic opinion in every country; and it cannot be taken therefore as merely a pastoral address to his clergy, but rather as a literary and controversial production offered to the free criticism of its readers. We are rather curious, indeed, to know the origin of its publication. On the 10th of November Mgr. Dupanloup issued "a letter to the clergy and faithful of his diocese before his departure for Rome," which breathes peace in every line; and which ends by expressing by anticipation the bishop's hearty and unreserved adherence to all decisions of the Vatican Council, whether conformable or otherwise to his own previous judgment. The letter now before us is dated the very next day, November 11th; and is certainly conceived in a most different spirit. It is apparently written under intense excitement, in some parts even displaying a certain acrimony and bitterness and, though purporting to deal exclusively with the question of opportuneness, it can hardly (we think) have been even intended to conceal his own dissent from the Ultramontane doctrine. Indeed, he seems to have been surprised at any one venturing to hold that doctrine: for in three different places (pp. 9, 50, 52) he quotes Archbishop Manning's statement that a Pope can define dogmata apart from the Episcopate; and each time he prints these four last words in capitals, as if to express his extreme surprise at the opinion.* We have been more amazed than we can well express

* After writing the passage in the text, we observed the subjoined observations in the "Tablet":