that so experienced a writer can have put forth a manifesto which is argumentatively so feeble. And though we have no space to criticise it in any detail, yet, before proceeding further with our general argument, we will briefly animadvert on one or two of Mgr. Dupanloup's remarks. We will take these in the order in which they occur.

1. In p. 7 the author implies that no Catholic, unversed in theological studies, can have reasonable ground for firmly holding the Ultramontane doctrine. This language-mutatis mutandissomewhat reminds us of a ground not unfrequently taken up by Anglicans; viz., that no Anglican can with a safe conscience submit himself to the Catholic Church, until he has studied the great Anglican theologians and is able to refute them. But Mgr. Dupanloup must admit it to be imaginable-to our mind it is certain that the Church has in various unmistakable ways implied the Ultramontane as being her true doctrine, though she does not actually enforce that doctrine as of faith. Now, if this be so, then surely Catholic laymen, of average intelligence and education, are fully competent to recognize the fact.

2. In p. 29 the author dwells on the circumstance, that certain Popes have "formulated if not defined certain doctrines concerning the Church's power in temporals. His chief instance, of course, is the Bull" Unam sanctam. But Suarez (de Fide, s. 3, n. 22) speaks of it as "manifest," that the "Unam sanctam" "has been received and approved by the common consent of the Catholic Church." There is Suarez's distinct testimony therefore, that bishops as well as Popes have accepted this Bull as dogmatic; and moreover, it was confirmed by Leo X. in Ecumenical Council: consequently Gallicans are as much concerned to defend it as Ultramontanes can possibly be. To the same effect those Munich theologians who answered Prince Hohenlohe's questions in a sense

"The readers of Mgr. Dupanloup's 'Observations' will be struck with the great stress he has laid on the phrase 'indépendamment et séparément des évêques,' which he dresses up in capital letters and inverted commas, repeats in some five different parts of his pamphlet, and ascribes to the Archbishop of Westminster. We could not at first make out what was his particular objection to the words; but we think we have now discovered his meaning. The word 'séparément' might convey to the French mind—and very likely has conveyed to Mgr. Dupanloup's-a sense essentially different from any involved in the original expression apart from.' The French word might convey the notion that the Archbishop contemplates as possible a doctrinal separation between Pope and bishops; that he contemplates the possibility of some Pope putting forth a doctrinal decree from which the body of the Episcopate shall dissent. But the English original could not possibly be understood in any such sense; and the Archbishop undoubtedly holds, as all Catholics hold, that God infallibly secures doctrinal union between the Episcopate and its Visible Head." The Bishop, however, has now denied all intention of fastening such a sense on the Archbishop's words.

opposed to Dr. Döllinger, point out that "whatever since Gregory VII. several Popes have uttered and decreed in this respect, that also several councils, which were and are considered Ecumenical, have uttered and decreed in like manner." They quote the Third and Fourth Lateran, and the first of Lyons, as sanctioning the deposition of kings by the Church; they add that the assemblies of Constance and of Basle threatened emperors, kings, &c., with loss of their office for certain cases of disobedience; and that even the Council of Trent (Sess. xxv, de Reform., c. 19) imposed the loss of certain temporal dominions, as a punishment for allowing any place to be used for duelling between Christians. These theologians think indeed that, notwithstanding these decrees, the doctrine in question does not bind the interior assent of Catholics; and on this we are not here expressing any opinion. We only point out, that no definition of Pontifical infallibility could introduce any fresh difficulty whatever on this particular subject.

3. "

Bellarmine was placed on the Index, for not having maintained the direct power of the Pope over" monarchs: though he did maintain most strongly the indirect (p. 31, note). We wish the Bishop had given his authority for this statement, which we never heard of before.

4. He shows curious puzzle-headedness, in the stress which he lays (pp. 34-40) on the difficulty of determining what Pontifical Acts are ex cathedrâ. He admits it to be the Church's undoubted doctrine at this moment, that every ex cathedrâ Act, issued by the Pope, is known to be infallible, so soon as it becomes apparent that bishops put forth no protest: while, of course, he claims no infallibility whatever for Acts, which were not issued ex cathedrâ at all. Whatever difficulties therefore there may be in knowing whether any given Act is ex cathedrâ, must generate quite as much practical inconvenience now, as could possibly exist under any definition of Pontifical infallibility. On the other hand, so far as such definition should pronounce distinctly on the tests of an ex cathedrâ Act, in that proportion practical dificulties on the subject would be reduced or would disappear.

5. The author mentions (p. 36) an opinion recently expressed, that a Pontifical Act may be ex cathedrâ, which is addressed formally to an individual, and which does not expressly state the Pope's intention of binding thereby the interior assent of Catholics. Mgr. Dupanloup thinks that this is a doctrine unknown to standard Ultramontane theologians. But, as we have again and again pointed out, S. Leo's Letter to S. Flavian does not in any way state that S. Leo issued it as binding the assent of Catholics. Yet Orsi, Ballerini, Muzzarelli, Cappellari, indeed, every Ultramontane

theologian we know, except only Bellarmine,-assume as indubitable that this Letter was issued ex cathedrâ. The same opinion has quite recently been expressed by F. Matignon, in a reply to Mgr. Maret in the "Études." Certainly, if ever there was a moderate Ultramontane theologian, it is F. Matignon.*

Yet

6. The Bishop chooses out of "all history" (p. 43), as an objection against Papal infallibility, the case of Paschal II. in the very next page he admits the fact, obvious on the very surface, that that Pontiff's error of conduct involved no ex cathedrâ determination whatever.

7. "A doctrinal judgment is at bottom nothing more than the attestation of a revealed fact" (p. 52). These words were written doubtless without full consideration. For on the surface they would be understood as implying, that the Church is only infallible as "testis," and not also as "judex" and "magistra " or, in other words, that she is not infallible in declaring dogmatic facts; or in condemning errors which are injurious, without being contradictory, to the Deposit; or in proclaiming the moral necessity of the Pope's civil princedom; &c. &c.

Our readers, we are sure, will not ascribe these brief comments to any want of deference for the illustrious writer's exalted position, or to any deficiency in that profound respect and gratitude which are due for his unwearying services in the Church's behalf. But he has on this occasion come before the public as an avowed opponent to the Archbishops of Malines and Westminster, and must of course be understood (as he understands them) to challenge criticism. Mgr. Dechamps, indeed, has put forth a most effective reply, which we heartily recommend to our readers' study. We have no space however for further remark on the details of the Bishop's pamphlet; while on the particular point on which our argument leads us to insist, he is in entire sympathy with Mgr. Maret and the "Correspondant." Mgr. Maret indeed expresses that rejection of Ultramontane doctrine, which the other two only (as it seems to us) imply; and we confess that we have hitherto done

* Dr. Ward, by the way, never admitted that he had once expressed “a grave error on the extent of infallibility; or that he had persisted "obstinately" in any error whatever (p. 39): though Mgr. Dupanloup or any one else has of course every right to arrive, after examination, at the conclusion that Dr. Ward so offended.

We have been a little surprised at the Bishop laying so much stress on this particular retractation. Dr. Ward, in deference to the judgment of theologians, made another retractation, which is certainly more important than that to which Mgr. Dupanloup refers. See "De Infallibilitatis Extensione," 66 Quæstio Prima." But in his first letter to F. Ryder, Dr. Ward had said: "That I may have made various incidental and minor mistakes in treating so large a question, I take for granted" (p. 27).

little more, as regards reading his work, than glance at it here and there, look through its table of contents, and verify the quotations given from it in the "Civiltà." But, on the whole, these three French writers seem in perfect accord.

We have already mentioned their tone of loyalty to the Supreme Pontiff and the Church: but while such writers as Janus continue to protect themselves under the Catholic name, it will always be important to point out, how simply true Catholics accept as of faith the dogma, that the Ecclesia Docens is infallible when teaching in union with the Holy See. Thus Mgr. Dupanloup says (p. 46) that "the infallibility of the Church has always been an article of faith"; and elsewhere he makes it abundantly clear, that by "the Church" he here means the Episcopate united with its visible Head. In like manner the "Correspondant." "A conciliar decision clothed with Pontifical assent, or a Pontifical proposition corroborated by assent of the Episcopate, infallibility is there, or it is nowhere: the Holy Ghost speaks by that double organ, or He never speaks at all: a Catholic owes them his submission, or he ceases to merit that name" (p. 13; see also p. 20). As to Mgr. Maret, this doctrine is involved in the very thesis which he sets himself to maintain.

Yet, distinctly as these writers testify the Church's infallibility in her express pronouncements, we do not think that they at all adequately ponder-though we are confident they would not think of denying the infallibility of her magisterium. Beginning with the "Correspondant," consider the import of such language as the following. Christ "founded," says the writer (pp. 21-2), "a truly fraternal monarchy"; but the cessation of councils for the last three hundred years has tended to give the Church "the appearance of one of those centralized empires, in which there is no one but master and servants; and in which movement is communicated from summit to extremities, with the mechanical regularity of an automaton. Hence the reproach often made against modern Catholics, and not without reason, that they have permitted themselves to lose (d'avoir laissé perdre) that respectful independence which the ancient churches knew how to unite with submission; so that [in these days] they wait for and solicit in everything the impulsion of the Holy See: a kind of practical Ultramontanism,

which really presents some of those evils (torts) and dangers which are gratuitously ascribed" to the Ultramontanism that is merely doctrinal. In other words, the writer holds that the general body of the Episcopate has so administered the Church for centuries, as most seriously to impair and almost revolutionize her constitution; and that the Episcopate has thus betrayed some of its primary duties, by the very fact of following too unreservedly the desires of the Holy Sec.

Mgr. Maret's language, to which the "Civiltà" has drawn attention, is even more disrespectful to the Church's magisterium. For instance. "The [approaching] holy Council will give testimonies to all men of its love [towards God], by the most sincere respect for their liberty, their rights, and their legitimate aspirations. The same love will lead the holy Council to make all the concessions to present times, manners, and needs, which are consistent with the inviolable preservation of the Deposit, and with the rigour of immutable principles. .. Misunderstandings will be cleared up; hearts, made to understand and love each other, will be united; and there will shine on the world the dawn [!!!] of that great unity promised by the Man-God." (Preface, pp. xiii, xiv.) "This is not the place to investigate and enumerate the causes, which have prevented Christian civilization from reaching its apogee; nor to indicate those which have caused its decadence. Let us only have the courage to say, that if Christian unity has been rent-if science has chosen to separate itself from faith-if liberty has chosen to reign without religion-a terrible part of responsibility for these misfortunes lies upon the men who have represented in the Christian world unity, faith, and religion." (Ib., p. iii.) Christ then, according to Mgr. Maret, promised the Church a certain brilliant unity: this unity however for an indefinite period has been buried in profoundest night; and a terrible part of the calamity is due to the course, universally and traditionally pursued by a long series of Popes and bishops. Now, for the first time during all these later centuries, such is Mgr. Maret's expectation-bishops will duly respect the "liberty, rights, and legitimate aspirations" of their fellow-men. And accordingly, though it will take a long time to undo the inveterate evils of the past, yet at least a certain faint dawn of Christian unity will shine upon the world, through that vigorous reversal of accepted maxims which may be expected from the Vatican Council.

One cannot be surprised then that both these writers wish for a fundamental change in the Church's constitution; and desire that Ecumenical councils be made periodical. "From the moment in which councils shall have become possible," says the "Correspondant (p. 23), "they will be always necessary." And Mgr. Maret devotes a whole chapter (book v., c. 5) to "the periodicity" of councils; suggesting (vol. ii. p. 396)_that_ten years is the greatest interval which can be wisely allowed to clapse, between one Ecumenical council and another. All important matters are to be transacted at these councils: in the interval between which the Holy See is only to engage in matters of mere routine, or else in such pressing affairs as admit of no delay. And the writers desire this, not on mere grounds of expediency, but as due to the authority with which God has invested the Episcopate.