Lastly Mgr. Dupanloup, though by no means expressing himself with the same distinctness and the same energy, yet throws his whole weight into the same scale. "There are holy personages," he says, "great minds, councils, which have called for or decreed the periodical return of these holy assemblies . . . and these assemblies, while they have become more practicable, are more in harmony than once they were "with the wishes of Christian peoples (p. 49). As he must have written this with most clear remembrance of what had been said both by Mgr. Maret and by the Correspondant," we do not think we press the matter at all too far, when we say that he has made himself responsible for their general view.

""

Now we would make two comments on the quotations here adduced. Firstly, as we have said, these writers surely show great blindness to the doctrine of the Church's infallibility in her magisterium. It is their very thesis, that, during more than three centuries, the great majority of Catholic bishops, in concert with the Holy See, have practically taught the faithful to credit the Holy Father with considerably more authority than God has really given him. Then, secondly, it seems to us that this is the first manifestation, since the Council of Basle, of what may be called practical Gallicanism. Bossuet's speculative view was doubtless, that every church should be governed by its own bishops, with comparatively small dependence on Rome but his practical theory was, that the Church of France should be governed by the King, and that other churches might (for him) submit to Rome as profoundly as they pleased. Or turn to the Charles Butler school in England: so far from wishing to exalt the bishops' prerogative, Charles Butler rather wished to exalt the laity at their expense. But the writers now before us seem to desire that the Episcopate shall throw off its too great subservience (as they consider it) to the Roman Pontiff, and shall claim for itself as its due a far more independent action than it now exercises, in the general government of the Church. Nor should we omit to add-though we have had no space to exhibit the fact that several persons of great influence in Germany, -many who are far from going Janus's lengths,—yet advance a good deal beyond the three French writers on whom we have been commenting. Speaking with the greatest possible diffidence, we cannot but think that here is presented a most serious element of future confusion and discord; and that some intervention of supreme authority would be most opportune.

We are now to conclude with briefly stating the argument which we would submit, founded on all that has been here drawn out. But in order to explain this argument, we must correct one misapprehension which seems rather widely prevalent. Several writers express themselves, as though the Church had already defined her own infallibility; and as though Archbishop Manning, e.g., were

desiring a gratuitous and novel addition to such her definition. Now we are the last to deny, that the Church has from the first taught as of faith the dogma of her own infallibility: but she has certainly never defined it. If the Vatican Council entertains the question, it will be the very first which has ever methodically considered the Church's infallibility at all; which has examined Scripture and Tradition, for the purpose of ascertaing the revealed doctrine on the subject. Nor do we indeed see how that doctrine can be defined, unless some definition is included both on its "subject " and its "object": both (1) on that authority (whether Pope or Pope and bishops) in which God has vested the gift; and also (2) on the extent of sphere over which the same gift extends. And as regards the "subject" of infallibility in particular,—since we have not the faintest doubt that the Pope, speaking ex cathedrâ, fulfils that function,-we can of course have no doubt what doctrine will be defined, if any.

Remarks altogether similar may be made, as to the Church's visible and corporate unity. She has indubitably from the first taught that dogma as of faith; and, moreover, several of her definitions in various ways imply it. But we are not aware of any definition in which it is expressly formulated.

We will now then give three reasons, which lead us humbly to hope that the Holy Ghost may inspire* the Council to put

We have been criticised for using the word "inspiration" in our last number (p. 480), to express the Holy Ghost's influence over Pope or Council, when an infallible determination is issued. It is most certain that such "inspiration" is totally different in kind from the inspiration given to Scripture and to Apostles; nor have we anywhere seen the distinction more clearly drawn out, than by Dr. Murray in his work on the Church; disp. xi., nn. 20-26. For this reason the word "assistance " is far more commonly used in the above-mentioned sense, than the word “inspiration.” And--though we were commenting on another's words and not choosing our own-still it would undoubtedly have been better if we had expressly referred to the distinction.

But we think our context would make it impossible, that any careful reader could misunderstand our meaning; or could suppose we were referring to any other "inspiration," than the inspiration of illuminating grace. Nor is this at all an unusual sense of the word. Thus Dr. Murray, in the very passage already cited, says, "Deus. inspirando—mentes pastorum flectit et dirigit," &c. &c. The Bishop of Beauvais, the other day, in taking leave of his diocese on his departure for Rome, spoke of the Holy Ghost as the "Divine Inspirer of the Church and of Councils." The "Civiltà" of last November 6th, says that certain doctrines will or will not be defined by the Council, "accordingly as the Holy Ghost shall inspire" (p. 288). Orsi calls S. Agatho's letter " a divinely inspired Rule of the Catholic Faith. ("De irreformabili," &c., i. c. xxiv. art. 3.) But we have graver authority still than any of these: for S. Leo declares that "the definition" of Chalcedon is, through divine inspiration, indubitably consonant in all things with true doctrine. (Letter to Julian of Cos: Letter 147.) We were led to look up this last passage, by a reference to it in a pamphlet of Mr. Ffoulkes's.

66

forth some definition on the Church's infallibility and (inclusively) on her corporate unity. Firstly, as we have more than once argued, in the present deplorable degradation of the European speculative intellect, the one bright spot amidst the darkness is the Church's presence; the one supporting and encouraging sound, amidst the Babel of discordant noises, is the Church's infallible voice. This then is one pressing need, which (it would seem) the Church can at once supply: viz., that her testimony to her own infallibility be placed in the clearest possible light; and that when Catholics allege that dogma against misbelievers, it shall not be possible for them to be met by the retort, that they are substituting their own private opinion for the Church's authentic doctrine. For secondly, as we have just implied, there are actually persons, calling themselves Catholics, who deny both the infallibility and the corporate unity of the Church; and one cannot but wish that these shall be expressly condemned, and that it shall be made impossible for them to be accounted Catholics. Lastly, the newlyrevived practical Gallicanism would, in two different ways, be repressed by a full definition of infallibility. For, on the one hand (as we have urged), the whole view implies a strange blindness to one most vital portion of the Church's infallibility, viz., her infallible magisterium; and, on the other hand, the one practical particular, which at present unites these thinkers, is their denial that a definition on infallibility is opportune. If the Pope were defined to be infallible in his ex cathedrâ teaching, a light would thus be thrown on the unapproached greatness of his office, which would render this practical Gallicanism impossible.

However, at last, how little can be the value of an individual's conjecture! The Holy Ghost's ways are most different from man's ways; and a thousand remedies may be available for existing evils, which have not as yet even occurred to human intelligence. Two things only can we say on the matter with full confidence. Never was there a time when the Church more urgently needed "a great work of illumination and pacification" and considering the circumstances and auguries under which the Vatican Council has met, never was there an assembly to which Catholics have more confidently looked up for the achievement of such a work.*

66

* Since the Council has assembled, writers of the English Protestant press have been labouring, but with scanty success, to apprehend the Church's constitution. They are familiar with modern political constitutions, in which the king reigns but does not govern"; and for that reason they have peculiar difficulty in mastering the Catholic dogma, that God has given to Pius IX. supreme authority, not only over priests and laymen, but also over bishops, whether dispersed or assembled in council. Hence these writers are led to invent ingenious romances about episcopal indignation against Papal "tyranny," which about as much correspond with reality as does the record of Gulliver's travels.

Notices of Books.

Simple Explanations concerning the Co-operation of the Most Holy Virgin. By F. Pierre Jeanjacquot, S.J. London: Philp.

THIS

HIS is not an ascetical work, but rather the foundation for an indefinite number of ascetical works. It may be described as a dogmatic exposition of what is intended in those epithets, "Co-redemptress," "Mother of Christians," the ascription of which to our Blessed Lady has received such high sanction from the Church. Some persons use these epithets with no adequate sense of what they imply; while others on the contrary, supposing the former to mean more than it does mean, protest against its use. We venture to think that all educated Catholics will do well to study this little work with the most serious attention, in order both that their devotion to our Blessed Lady be sufficiently pervasive and profound, and also that it may rest on an intelligent foundation. Dr. Pusey will, of course, see in it only one continued addition to the pure Gospel ; but neither Dr. Pusey nor any one else will think of denying that, if those doctrines be really true which are here scientifically set forth, devotion to our Blessed Lady has the most intimate possible connection with a Christian's whole interior life. We should not ourselves hesitate to say, that the love of God and of our Blessed Lord receives altogether a new quality, when supported by the unintermitting and most tender worship of the Deipara.

The one obvious objection to the Catholic phrase, "Co-redemptress," is, that it denies the office of our Lord as Sole Redeemer. This difficulty arises (p. 10) from men forgetting that there are two different kinds of co-operation; and (p. 11) that where the co-operation takes place "by counsel, by instigation, by intercession, or by a consent without which the work could not be accomplished," the work still remains exclusively performed by its immediate agent. So (p. 7) it was Adam's sin which exclusively wrought man's fall; and yet Eve actively co-operated in that fall, because she incited Adam to do that which exclusively caused it. Moreover (p. 12) Eve's co-operation was formal and not merely material, because she knew she was exciting him to what involved man's ruin. In a parallel manner (p. 13), Christ Alone wrought man's whole redemption; and yet Mary as truly and as formally co-operated in man's redemption, as Eve in man's fall.

She co-operated of course in one sense, by the circumstance of becoming His Mother. But, if this were all, it could not be said (p. 16) that she is VOL. XIV. NO. XXVII. [New Series.]

Q

the co-operatrix of redemption, except in a purely material sense. At the solemn moment of the Annunciation, man's redemption depended on the alternative, whether she would or would not give her consent. And the consent which she gave was not merely to the being Mother of God-that (p. 22) would have been simply an unparalleled exaltation and dignity-but she consented to His work of redemption; she consented to undergo all that unspeakable suffering and anguish, which were involved in her Son dying for the sins of the world. As Eve then formally co-operated in the fall, so Mary formally co-operated in the redemption.

When it is said however that redemption depended on Mary's consent, it must not be forgotten (p. 20) that this involved no "jeopardizing of God's work" because by His infallible grace He secured her consent, without in any way violating her perfect liberty of will.

F. Jeanjacquot gives a most special significance to this consent of our Blessed Lady, by maintaining (p. 123), "with all confidence," that at that very moment and ever afterwards she had "a clear and distinct knowledge of each" redeemed soul. We merely mention this opinion, without presuming to criticise it. We heartily agree with him, that such a supposition by no means "raises her beyond the rank of a pure creature" (p. 124) ; but we confess we should have been glad to see more direct evidence for a doctrine, most touching indeed and beautiful, but not commonly received. The quotations in p. 127 do not necessarily refer to her state in vid and the only other authority which we can find alleged, is an anonymous "pious author," cited in p. 87, who says, that at the time of the Passion, she "received by divine revelation a knowledge of the sins of each and all of the children of Adam." However, we heartily hope there are grounds for accepting a doctrine, so singularly engaging and attractive to piety.

On the other hand it must not be forgotten, that the Co-redemptress was herself redeemed; and the perfect harmony of these two facts is illustrated (p. 35) by a very striking parallel between Eve's relation to Adam and Mary's to Jesus. Moreover, she was redeemed with a higher redemption than any other creature; a redemption (p. 36) of preservation and not of deliverance: for she was redeemed by her Son's foreseen death from all sin, original and actual; nay (as we heartily follow many theologians in holding), from the very debitum proximum of original sin. We are a little surprised that the author before us has not referred one way or another to this latter doctrine. Nor is Mary only men's Co-redemptress; she is also their Mother. By this fact more is meant (p. 70) than that she bears to men the affection of a mother; she is literally my Mother, in a higher and truer sense even than my mother after the flesh can so be called. And who can tell the tenderness of her love for those whose Mother she has become through such bitter and transfixing anguish ?

When such writers, then, as Dr. Pusey call on the Church to moderate her children's devotion to the tenderest of mothers, he is calling on her to take from them one of their very highest spiritual privileges; one of the very highest and surest means which she places at their disposal (p. 49), for growing in the love of God and of Christ.

We have confined ourselves to a mere indication of what our readers will