he indisputably counts among the greatest intellectual lights that the Catholic Church of the present age has to show."

I cite a still higher authority in Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague. On May 25, 1868, he addressed a letter to Cardinal Antonelli, in which he pointed out that the theologians, who had been summoned from Germany to the Council, were all of the same theological school, and that for the treatment of dogmatic matters it was most important that some more profound students, of more rich and universal learning, as well as sound in faith, should be called. He goes on to suggest the names of

Hefele, Kuhn, and (with a high eulogy) Von Döllinger.

The strangest of all is yet behind. Cardinal Antonelli, in his reply dated July 15, receives with some favour the suggestion of Cardinal Schwarzenberg, and says that one of the three theologians named would certainly have been invited to the Council, had not the Pope been informed that if invited, he would decline to come. That one was Dr. Von Döllinger.

I cite the original documents, which will be found in Friedrich's 'Documenta ad illustrandum Conc. Vat.,' pp. 277-80.

APPENDIX C (p. 26).

As I have cited Schrader elsewhere, I cite him here also; simply because he translates (into German) upon a different construction of the Seventy-third Article of the Syllabus from that which I had adopted, and makes a disjunctive proposition out of two statements which appear to be in effect identical. In English, his conversion of the article runs as follows:

"Among Christians no true matrimony can be constituted by virtue of a civil contract; and it is true that either the marriage contract between Christians is a Sacrament, or that the contract is null when the Sacrament is excluded.

"Remark. And, on this very account, is every contract entered into between man and woman, among Christians, without the Sacrament, in virtue of any civil law whatever, nothing else than a shameful and pernicious concubinage, so strongly condemned by the Church; and therefore the marriage-bond can never be separated from the Sacrament."*

The sum of the matter seems to be this. Wherever it has

* Schrader, Heft ii. p. 79. Wien, 1865.

pleased the Pope to proclaim the Tridentine Decrees, civil marriage is concubinage. It is the duty of each concubinary (or party to concubinage), with or without the consent of the other party, to quit that guilty state. And as no law of Church or State binds a concubinary to marriage with the other concubinary, he (or she) is free, so far as the Church of Rome can create the freedom, to marry another person.

APPENDIX D (p. 51).

I do not think myself called upon to reply to the statements by which Bishop Vaughan has sought ('Pastoral Letter,' pp. 35-7) to show, that the fear of civil war ultimately turned the scale in the minds of the chief Ministers of 1829, and led them to propose the Bill for Emancipation. First, because the question is not what influences acted at that moment on those particular minds, but how that equilibrium of moral forces in the country had been brought about which made civil war, or something that might be called civil war, a possibility. Secondly, because I am content with the reply provided in the Concio of Archbishop Kenrick, c. viii. See Friedrich's Documenta ad illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum,' vol. i. p. 219. The statements would, in truth, only be relevant, if they were meant to show that the Roman Catholics of that day were justified in making false statements of their belief in order to obtain civil equality, but that, as those statements did not avail to conciliate the Ministers of 1829, they then materially fell back upon the true ones.

To show, however, how long a time had to pass before the poison could obtain possession of the body, I point, without comment, to the subjoined statement, anonymous, but, so far as I know, uncontradicted, and given with minute particulars, which would have made the exposure of falsehood perfectly easy. It is taken from the Cornish Telegraph' of Dec. 9, 1874, and is signed Clericus. It follows a corresponding statement with regard to America, which is completely corroborated by Archbishop Kenrick in his Concio: see Friedrich's Documenta,' i. 215.

"Of a painful alteration in another popular work, Keenan's 'Controversial Catechism,' (London, Catholic Publishing and Bookselling Company, 53, New Bond Street,) I can speak from two gravely differing copies, both professedly of the same edition, now lying before me. This is so singular a case that I venture

to give it in a little detail. Keenan's 'Catechism' has been very extensively used in Great Britain and America. In his preface to the third edition, the author speaks of it as 'having the high approbation of Archbishop Hughes, the Right Rev. Drs. Kyle and Carruthers; as well as the approval of the Right Rev. Dr. Gillis, and the Right Rev. Dr. Murdoch.' These last-named four ecclesiastics were vicars-apostolic of their respective districts in Scotland, and their separate episcopal approbations are prefixed to the Catechism;' those of Bishops Carruthers and Kyle are dated, respectively, 10th and 15th April, 1846; those of Bishops Gillis and Murdoch, 14th and 19th November, 1853.

"Thus this work was authenticated by a well-known American archbishop and four British bishops thoroughly familiar with the teaching of their Church, long before Archbishop Manning joined it. Now, at page 112 of one of my copies of the new edition, corrected by the author, twenty-fourth thousand,' are the following question and answer :

Q.-"Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?'

"A. "This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body,-that is, by the bishops of the Church.'

"It would be satisfactory if Archbishop Manning would explain how his statement to Mr. Bennett squares with this statement of Keenan's, and with that of the 50 Reasons.

"But, further, it would be highly satisfactory if Archbishop Manning, or some representative of the 'Catholic Publishing and Bookselling Company' would explain how it came to pass that, on the passing of the Vatican decree, apparently whilst this very edition of Keenan's Catechism was passing through the press, the above crucial question and answer were quietly dropped out, though no intimation whatsoever was given that this vital alteration was made in the remainder of the edition. Had a note been. appended, intimating that this change had become needful, no objection, of course, could have been made. But no word has been inserted to announce, or explain, this omission of so material a passage; whilst the utmost pains have been taken, and, I must add, with great success, to pass off this gravely altered book as being identical with the rest of the edition. The title-pages of both copies alike profess that it is the new edition, corrected by the author,' (who was in his grave before the Vatican Council was

dreamed of); both profess to be of the twenty-fourth thousand;' both have the same episcopal approbations and prefaces; both are paged alike throughout; so that, from title-page to index, both copies are, apparently, identical. I have very often placed both in the hands of friends, and asked if they could detect any difference, but have always found they did not. The Roman Catholic booksellers, Messrs. Kelly and Messrs. Gill, in Dublin, from whom I purchased a number of copies in August, 1871, were equally unaware of this change; both believed that the Publishing Company had supplied them with the same book, and both expressed strongly their surprise at finding the change made without notice. Another Dublin Roman Catholic bookseller was very indignant at this imposition, and strongly urged me to expose it. It is no accidental slip of the press; for whilst all the earliest copies of the edition I bought from Messrs. Kelly contained the question and answer, they were omitted in all the later copies of Messrs. Gill's supply. The omission is very neatly, cleverly made by a slight widening of the spaces between the questions and answers on page 112 and the beginning of page 113; so skilfully managed that nobody would be at all likely to notice the difference in these pages of the two copies, unless he carefully looked, as I did, for the express purpose of seeing if both alike contained this question and answer."

APPENDIX E (p. 51).

Extract from The Catholic Question;' addressed to the Freeholders of the County of York, on the General Election of 1826,

p. 31.

"The Catholic religion has three great æras; first in its commencement to the dark ages; then from the middle centuries down to the Reformation; and lastly from the Reformation to the present day. The Popish religion of the present day has scarcely any resemblance with its middle stage; its powers, its pretensions, its doctrines, its wealth and its object are not the same; it is a phantom, both in theory and practice, to what it once was; and yet the bigots draw all their arguments from the Middle Ages and, passing all the manifest alterations of modern times, set up a cry about the enormities of times long past, and which have been dead and buried these three hundred years. This unjust conduct is just the same as if you were to hang a faithful, tried domestic, who had served you forty years, because he had committed some

petty theft when he was a boy. It is the most illiberal and the most unjustifiable mode of arguing, and if applied to the Church of England, would reduce it to a worse case than that of her old rival."

The "bigots," who are here charged by the Liberal electors of Yorkshire with reviving mediæval Romanism, are not Vaticanists, but Protestant bigots, whose sinister predictions the Vaticanists have done, and are doing, their best to verify.

Both by reason of the language of this extract, and of its being taken out of the actual working armoury of one of the great electioneering struggles for the County of York, which then much predominated in importance over every other constituency of the United Kingdom, it is important. It shows by direct evidence how the mitigated professions of the day told, and justly told, on the popular mind of England.

APPENDIX F (p. 59).

I. From the Decree.

"Et primò declarat, quod ipsa in Spiritu Sancto legitimè congregata, concilium generale faciens, et ecclesiam Catholicam repræsentans, potestatem a Christo immediatè habet, cui quilibet cujusque status vel dignitatis, etiam si papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quæ pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem dicti schismatis, et reformationem dictæ ecclesiæ in capite et in membris.". Conc. Const. Sess. v.; Labbe et Cossart, tom. xii. p. 22.

From the account of the Pope's confirmation.

"Quibus sic factis, sanctissimus dominus noster papa dixit, respondendo ad prædicta, quod omnia et singula determinata conclusa et decreta in materiis fidei per præsens concilium, conciliariter tenore et inviolabiliter observare volebat, et nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipsaque sic conciliariter facta approbat et ratificat, et non aliter, nec alio modo."-Conc. Const. Sess. xlv.; Labbe et Cossart, tom. xii. p. 258.

APPENDIX G (p. 68).

Labbe, Concilia, x. 1127, ed. Paris, 1671, Canon II.

66

Obedite præpositis vestris, et subjacete illis; ipsi enim prævigilant pro animabus vestris, tanquam rationem reddituri: Paulus