lay within the province of theology, and dwelt principally on two main propositions. I. That Rome had reproduced for active service those doctrines of former times, termed by me "rusty tools," which she was fondly thought to have disused. II. That the Pope now claims, with plenary authority, from every convert and member of his Church, that he "shall place his loyalty and civil duty at the mercy of another" that other being himself. These are the assertions, which I now hold myself bound further to sustain and prove. II. THE RUSTY TOOLS. THE SYLLABUS. 1. Its Contents. ! 2. Its Authority. WITH regard to the proposition that Rome has refurbished her "rusty" tools, Dr. Newman says it was by these tools that Europe was brought into a civilized condition and thinks it worth while to ask whether it is my wish that penalties so sharp, and expressions so high, should be of daily use.* I may be allowed to say, in reply to the remark I have cited, that I have nowhere presumed to pronounce a general censure on the conduct of the Papacy in the middle ages. That is a vast question, reaching far beyond my knowledge or capacity. I believe much is to be justly said in praise, much as justly in blame. But I cannot view the statement that Papal claims and conduct created the civilization of Europe as other than thoroughly unhistorical and one-sided: as resting upon a narrow selection of evidence, upon strong exaggeration of what that evidence imports, and upon an "invincible ignorance" as to all the rest. Many things may have been suited, or not unsuited, to rude times and indeterminate ideas of political right, the reproduction of which is at the least strange, perhaps even monstrous. We look back with interest and respect upon our early fire-arms as they rest peacefully ranged upon * Dr. Newman, p. 32. the wall; but we cannot think highly of the judgment which would recommend their use in modern warfare. As for those weapons which had been consigned to obscurity and rust, my answer to Dr. Newman's question is that they should have slept for ever, till perchance some reclaiming plough of the future should disturb them. Agricola, incurvo terram molitus aratro, As to the proof of my accusation, it appeared to me that it might be sufficiently given in a summary but true account of some important portions of the Encyclica of December 8th, 1864, and especially of the accompanying Syllabus of the same date. The replies to the five or six pages, in which I dealt with this subject, have so swollen as to reach fifteen or twenty times the bulk. I am sorry that they involve me in the necessity of entering upon a few pages of detail which may be wearisome. But I am bound to vindicate my good faith and care, where a failure in either involves results of real importance. These results fall under the two following heads : (1). The Syllabus; what is its language? (2). The Syllabus; what is its authority? As to the language, I have justly represented it: as to its authority, my statement is not above, but below the mark. * Virgil, Georgics i. 493. Erroneously called by some of my antagonists a translation, and then condemned as a bad translation. But I know of no recipe for translating into less than half the bulk of the original. 1. The Contents of the Syllabus. My representation of the language of the Syllabus has been assailed in strong terms. I proceed to defend it: observing, however, that my legitimate object was to state in popular terms the effect of propositions more or less technical and scholastic: and, secondly, that I did not present each and every proposition for a separate disapproval, but directed attention rather to the effect of the document as a whole, in a qualifying passage (p. 13) which no one of my critics has been at the pains to notice. Nos. 1-3.-The first charge of unjust representation is this.* I have stated that the Pope condemns (p. 25) liberty of the press, and liberty of speech. By reference to the original it is shown, that the right of printing and speaking is not in terms condemned universally; but only the right of each man to print or speak all his thoughts (suos conceptus quoscunque), whatever they may be. Hereupon it is justly observed, that in all countries there are laws against blasphemy, or obscenity, or sedition, or all three.. It is argued, then, that men are not allowed the right to speak or print all their thoughts, and that such an extreme right only is what the Pope has condemned. It appears to me that this is, to use a mild phrase, mere trifling with the subject. We are asked to believe that what the Pope intended to condemn was a state of things, which never has existed in any country of the world. Now, he says he is condemning one of the commonly prevailing errors of the time, familiarly known The Month,' December 1874, p. 494. Coleridge, Abomination of Desolation,' p. 20. Bishop Ullathorne, Pastoral Letter,' p. 16. Monk of St. Augustine's, p. 15. Dr. Newman, pp. 59, 72, in some part. to the bishops whom he addresses. What bishop knows of a State which by law allows a perfectly free course to blasphemy, filthiness, and sedition? The world knows quite well what is meant by free speech and a free press. It does mean, generally, perhaps it may be said universally, the right of declaring all opinions whatsoever. The limit of freedom is not the justness of the opinion, but it is this, that it shall be opinion in good faith, and not mere grossness, passion, or appeal to violence. The law of England at this moment, allowing all opinions whatever, provided they are treated by way of rational discourse, most closely corresponds to what the Pope has condemned. His condemnation is illustrated by his own practice as Governor in the Roman States, where noopinion could be spoken or printed but such as he approved. Once, indeed, he permitted a free discussion on Saint Peter's presence and prelacy in the city; but he repented quickly, and forbade the repetition of it. We might even cite his practice as Pope in 1870, where everything was done to keep the proceedings of the Council secret from the Church which it professed to represent, and even practically secret from its members, except those who were of the governing cabal. But there can be no better mode of exhibiting his real meaning than by referring to his account of the Austrian law. Hâc lege omnis omnium opinionum et librariæ artis libertas, omnis tum fidei, tum conscientiae ac doctrina, libertas statuitur. To the kind of condemnation given, I shall again "Probè noscitis hoc tempore non paucos reperiri, qui," &c.— Encycl.,' December 8, 1864. From the Pope's Allocution of June 22, 1868: "By this law is established universal liberty of all opinions and of the press, and, as of belief, so of conscience and of teaching." See Vering, |