These Letters then, we have now seen, do not present even a momentary or superficial difficulty, against the dogma of Pontifical infallibility. But it is not a little remarkable that, even on Mr. Renouf's own showing, they present no difficulty whatever against a further pious opinion, which is held by various theologians as more or less probable. We refer to the opinion, that God will never permit a Pope, even personally, to be a formal heretic. Mr. Renouf only alleges, that Honorius "was at least materially heretical” (p. 11). On the other hand, all Ultramontanes firmly hold that he so grievously failed in resisting Monothelism, as to deserve S. Leo II.'s infallibly pronounced anathema. The only remaining question therefore is, whether this failure consisted (as we maintain) in his not taking due pains to ascertain Sergius's true doctrine; or whether it consisted (as Mr. Renouf maintains) in being himself bitten by that doctrine, before "discovering that the sense of the Church was decidedly opposed to it" (p. 11). On this comparatively small issue we are to encounter Mr. Renouf in April. We shall have little difficulty in the task. We have now replied to that gentleman's third thesis ; and the reasoning adduced by him for his two former is so weak, that we are a good deal surprised it has been satisfactory even to himself. His statements are mutually contradictory, even on the fundamental question, what constitutes the Monothelite heresy? And as to his arguments, their only appearance of strength lies in the confidence with which they are expressed.

With one more word we conclude for the present. Mr. Renouf's first pamphlet was placed on the Index. We should have been glad to hear from him what measures he has taken, to ascertain the particular errors for which it was condemned, and to avoid those errors in future. It seems to us, that his profound silence on the subject exhibits intolerable disrespect to authority.

The Roman Index and its Proceedings.

Is the Western Church under an Anathema? By E. S. FFOULKES. London: Hayes.

M

R. FFOULKES, having now been refused the sacraments in consequence of his former pamphlet, has so greatly lost his power of injuring the Church, that we need only give these pamphlets very slight notice. There are two particulars however, on which we are personally appealed to for an explanation, and which we will sucessively consider.

Mr. Ffoulkes protests against "the rude personal attacks" of F. Ryder and ourselves. So far as we are concerned, our reason for speaking in the tone we did is simply this :-When Mr. Ffoulkes wrote his pamphlet, either he did or did not believe, that the Roman Catholic Church is appointed by God as man's one infallible guide to virtue, sanctification, and salvation. If he did not believe this, he was simply in the position VOL. XIV. NO. XXVII. [New Series.]

S

of a "traitor in the camp ; of a Frenchman or Russian, fighting against England in English uniform. If he did believe the truth we have mentioned, it is difficult to imagine a more grievous offence, than his doing everything he possibly could, that men should think all manner of evil against that society, which (as he well knew) God has given them as their infallible guide to virtue, sanctification, and salvation. We hardly know which alternative is more discreditable to Mr. Ffoulkes: but in either case it was our duty, as we conceive, to exhibit, without disguise or extenuation, the various moral and intellectual defects, which we considered his writings prominently to exhibit. We look back with gratification on the fact of our having done so; but we have never had a particle of personal feeling in the whole matter.

Mr. Ffoulkes says, in his second pamphlet (p. 28), that a certain sentence, which we quoted in April (p. 285, note) as from S. Hormisdas, is of most suspicious genuineness; and that it is marked accordingly in every printed edition of that Pontiff's Letters, which Mr. Ffoulkes has seen. As a matter of fact, we believe there is no doubt whatever of its genuineness: but clearly, if we had had any reason to suspect that such a doubt had been expressed, it was very dishonest in us not to mention the circumstance. We had no reason whatever for such suspicion. Our own reference was taken from Colet's edition of Labbe: there no such doubt is mentioned. A learned friend tells us that the same is true concerning Harduin's collection.

In fairness at once to Mr. Ffoulkes and to the cause of truth, we here print an explanation of his intended doctrine, to which he still adheres::

"Having learnt from my bishop that a pamphlet lately published by me, entitled 'The Church's Creed or the Crown's Creed?', has been examined, and pronounced by him to be heretical, I desire hereby to submit myself to that judgment, and to express my sorrow that I should in anything have erred from the holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Although I trust I have not intentionally erred from the truth, nor wilfully opposed myself to the divine authority of the Church, nevertheless I am well aware how easily I may have done so.

"I therefore hereby, without reserve, retract all and everything that I have written, there or elsewhere, which is contrary to what the Church has defined as of faith.

"Having learnt also from him that scandal, offence, and pain has been given by my writings, and especially by the pamphlet above-named, to the faithful, and that the same pamphlet has been used by those that are separate from the Catholic and Roman Church as an excuse or argument for not submitting to its divine authority, I hereby desire to explain myself categorically on two points in particular, the most likely to have caused such results of any that occur to me, from not having been brought out as prominently there as they might have been, but on which it never was my intention that my meaning should be ambiguous.

"1. Whatever I may or may not have been called upon to profess fourteen years ago myself, I nevertheless believe, and believe heartily, in the inerrancy, by perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost in all ages, of the one Catholic Church in communion with the Pope, and of which the Pope is head by divine right, in fidei ac morum disciplinâ tradendâ,' as the Cate

chism of the Council of Trent teaches. And, 2, as regards matter of fact, my own personal investigations enable me to affirm the verdict of history to be, that the See of Rome, as such, has been preserved in all ages from upholding or embracing heresy. I say this more particularly with reference to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost, on which I fear my meaning may have been misapprehended.

"Therefore, negatively, should I have ever seemed to say or imply the contrary to what I have just affirmed, or else to say or imply that the true Church has ever ceased, or can ever cease, to be one visibly, or that the See of Rome was not constituted its centre of unity upon earth, so that communion with the one should be the indispensable condition of participating in the unity of the other, I hereby declare my heartfelt sorrow at having, in any of my writings, so expressed myself on these points as to have offended any or misled any by seeming to say or imply, in language injurious to the Holy See, what I never meant to assert and hereby repudiate" ("The Roman Index, &c.," pp. 34, 35).

We trust that Mr. Ffoulkes's non-Catholic admirers will remember that this is the authentic exposition of his opinions. For ourselves, we cannot but cherish the hope that he will before long carry forward the principles here laid down to their legitimate issue, and will make an honourable act of retractation and submission.

Separation not Schism. By G. F. COBB, M.A. London: Palmer.

WH

HATEVER Mr. Cobb writes deserves a careful hearing from Catholics, because of the author's singular candour and temperance. Moreover this pamphlet has one charm for us, as singularly reminding us of the view elaborated, some twenty-five years ago, in a volume called "The Ideal of a Christian Church," which Mr. Cobb probably never opened. We have been much disappointed in not having time to notice Mr. Cobb as he deserves this quarter; but hope to do so without fail in our April number.

The Visible Unity of the Catholic Church.

WE

London: Longmans.

By M. J. RHODES, M.A.

E have just received most of the proof-sheets of this admirable work : which will not however be out until about the middle of January. We will give it a careful notice in our next number. Here we will only say that it is written against Anglicans in general and against Dr. Pusey in particular; that it is at once most temperately and most closely argued; that it is very highly praised by Mr. Rhodes's late diocesan, the Bishop of Cork, who warmly encouraged the whole undertaking; and that, in addition to the general theological censorship which the whole has received, F. Cardella, S.J., of the "Civiltà," has examined with particular care those portions which are more distinctly dogmatic.

Union with Rome. Five Afternoon Lectures preached in the Church of the Immaculate Conception, Farm Street, by the Rev. ALBANY CHRISTIE, of the Society of Jesus. Burns, Oates, & Co.

W

E have here a series of calm, clear arguments upon the position assumed by Ritualistic Anglicans in the present day. The first sermon states, with unusual fairness, the argument that each diocese is a separate Church, and that individuals are not bound, and therefore not allowed, to leave it; shows that the real point at issue is "independence or dependence"; and states the Catholic doctrine that one Head, upon whom all were to depend, was appointed by our Lord. The second gives the arguments to prove that the visible Church must have a visible Head; and that if, as is shown, the existence of such a Head is à priori probable (i.e., that its necessity may be inferred on grounds admitted alike by Anglicans and by Catholics), then it is unreasonable to explain away texts which seem to refer to it, and which yet by themselves might bear another interpretation. We do not remember to have seen this drawn out; and yet we are sure the real reason why religious men among Protestants of whatever class explain away such texts as those recording the charge of our Blessed Lord to S. Peter, or, again, His solemn words upon the Real Presence in the sixth chapter of S. John's Gospel, for instance, or at the Last Supper, is, that the conclusion seems to them strange and startling, because they have been taught from their childhood that it is incredible and unreasonable; while, on the other hand, they are familiar with the words, and therefore have become so thoroughly accustomed to a different interpretation, that by long habit it seems to them the only natural one, and all others forced and improbable. We are confident that on this account religious Protestants are less sensible of the real force of texts with which they have been familiar from their infancy, than others to whom the Scriptures are more new. On the other hand, Catholics, who have learned at an age to which their memory does not extend both the doctrine and the text in which it is mentioned, cannot see how an honest man can put upon it any other interpretation. This, we are certain, is one of the main reasons why persons brought up in widely different religious schools find it almost impossible to believe each other to be in good faith; and why we continually find irreligious men who are not anxiously concerned to receive the words of our Divine Master as He would have them received, or unbelievers who attach to them no importance at all, ready to admit that Catholic doctrine is distinctly expressed in them: while multitudes of well-meaning religious men are indignant at what they regard as a forced interpretation of them—that is, at one quite different from what they have been brought up to believe to be their meaning.

The third sermon answers the Tractarian view, that external union, although he normal state of the Christian Church, has been forfeited by the sins of Christians showing that the promise of perpetual unity is, from its nature.

:

one of those which are unconditional. The fourth answers very effectively what we know to be one of the main difficulties of Anglicans as to the authority of the Holy See; i.e., that although given by our Blessed Lord to S. Peter, yet, in practice, it was gradually developed. The fifth shows that it is the duty of individuals to make their own submission at once, without waiting for the realization of the phantom of "corporate union." In this, F. Christie well draws out the reasons why it is impossible (to take one example) that the Holy See should concede communion under both kinds to Anglicans, although it was conceded in the sixteenth century to the Maronites. Anglicans desire it "on principles of heresy, the Maronites possessed it by time-honoured tradition." In England the demand arose because, after the Communion under one kind had long been the practice of the Western Church, "innovators arose who asserted that communion under one kind was a mutilated sacrament, that Christ was not received whole and entire under each kind, and therefore that communion under both kinds was necessary." To concede this demand therefore, would be to endorse heretical teaching.

Father Christie shows (what to Catholics is so clear that one is almost provoked it should be needful to show it), that " corporate reunion," in the sense intended by the Ritualistic leaders, is impossible on the side of the Church; what we think more important is that he shows, even more forcibly, its impossibility on the Anglican side. Nothing is more certain than that those members of the Established Church who really desire reunion are only a sprinkling, and that the great majority would not merely regret the only terms on which the Church could allow it, but would regard it in itself, apart from all consideration of those terms, an evil, not a good. But F. Christie very well puts it to the Unionists, that with their feelings about the Anglican Bishops, they can hardly wish that they should be admitted as Bishops of the Catholic Church, even if it were possible that the Church should be willing to admit them. Assuredly not. They are well selected for the office to which they aspired, and to which they were appointed-to be the chiefs of a respectable profession, dignified members of the Civil Service, as Lord Houghton well called them; but as Catholic Bishops they would feel themselves, and be felt by others, to be much more out of their place, than if they were suddenly called to command a brigade of Guards. The only point on which we do not agree with F. Christie is his opinion that the next generation of Anglican clergy is not likely to be affected by the Catholic movement. We may be mistaken, for, of all gifts, anticipation of what is to come is least granted to man; but, as far as present indications enable us to judge, we cannot but believe that there is likely to be a very strong body of men with even less remnant of positive faith (difficult as that seems to imagine) than the "broad" party of the present generation; but that of those who retain any belief in Christianity, as the term has in times past been understood even among Protestants, very nearly, if not quite all, are likely enough to ever be nearer to the Catholic Church than most of the present Unionist party. If we are not mistaken, F. Christie is led to a different conclusion by a miscalculation, not unnatural in one who was so important a member of the "Puseyite" movement in Oxford, when he thinks