Christian truth, and subversive of the fundamental principles of the Kingdom of Christ, to consider such a state of things as normal and legitimate. This last is the error of Naturalism of which we are speaking; but it is quite distinct from the opinion that the connection between Church and State has been so perverted by the civil power as to have often produced greater practical evils than any which are involved in the comparative independence of the two powers, or that when nations are actually largely divided as to religion, fair toleration becomes an absolute necessity (pp. 119, 120).

The "Month" then proceeds to set forth, with much clearness and force, those historical circumstances, which have in fact occasioned the error of Liberal Catholicism, and which have led "impetuous but not very well-grounded minds" to take up with that error (pp. 120, 121). And it then makes a remark, which is very obvious indeed, but not perhaps the less necessary to be put forth explicitly. There is no intrinsic connection whatever (1) between Jansenism and Gallicanism or minimism; nor (2) perhaps between Liberal Catholicism and Gallicanism or minimism; nor (3) between Jansenism and Liberal Catholicism. Yet extrinsically there is a certain connection between all four; arising from the fact, that both Jansenists and Liberal Catholics have been naturally led to seek shelter, in Gallicanism or minimism, from the repeated blows of Pontifical condemnation with which they have been visited (p. 123).

We heartily concur with the opinion which follows next in order; viz., that it is of very great importance to address unsound Catholics, not only on the ground of authority, but also of more general argument.

There may be times and places at which it may be useful or even imperative to argue against the semi-Naturalism of which we are speaking simply from authority, provided that the argument proceeds from principles acknowledged by both parties. A good Catholic, holding some of these opinions, may be peremptorily silenced by an argument which shows him first, that on whatever point, and within whatever sphere, the supreme authority of the Church speaks in a certain manner, its voice is to be listened to as the utterance of infallible truth; and, secondly, that that authority has spoken in that particular manner as to the opinions in question. But the defenders of the truth have usually gone further than this in their explanations as to erroneous opinions . . . . The reason is obvious, especially in the case of Catholics moving in the midst of a Protestant community. The opinions in question are, in reality, caught by Catholics from the atmosphere in which they live, and these opinions leaven to an immense extent the whole of European thought and society. There can be no nobler employment for the industry of Catholic writers than to labour in tracing up to their sources the various streams of error, and in laying bare the evil principles on which the dangerous system

is based. If this is done patiently and thoroughly, Catholics may expect to see the process conciliate and win over to the full truth a large number of those who are now outside the Church, but who possess to some extent the Christian theory to which these opinions are so hostile. We should always remember that we have to save not only Catholic communities but Christian society in general from the effect of these opinions; and it would be idle and foolish to attempt to confute them by the one peremptory argument of authority. A blow of immense power is struck at them, even in the estimation of right-minded persons who are not children of the Church, by the solemn declarations of the Supreme Pontiff; but the blow itself does not so much convince and explain, as arrest attention and arouse reflection. On the other hand, a great good is to be done among Anglicans and Protestants in a country like our own, by grappling with the fundamental errors of Naturalism, and following them out into their development as to Church authority or as to Christian society. No one who knows anything at all of the state of thought among Anglicans, for instance-whatever inconsistencies their system may contain-can deny that there exist among them many elements which would be attracted by such a demonstration (pp. 124-126).

This citation brings us, from our points of agreement with the " 'Month," to those on which we have to defend ourselves against that periodical. In fact we have had to omit one sentence of the last passage, and also to terminate our extract somewhat abruptly, in order to avoid entering prematurely on the debated ground.

We are next then to prepare our way for vindicating our argument of April against our contemporary's assault. And with this end in view, we make two preliminary observations.

He implies throughout, that our zeal against French Liberal Catholicism was the chief-almost the sole-reason, which led us to speak so constantly and emphatically on the Church's infallibility in matters external to (though connected with) the Deposit of Faith. But this is very far from having been the case. So far back as in July, 1864 (pp. 93-95), we compared the errors condemned in the Munich Brief with those condemned in the "Mirari vos"; and we said (whether we judged rightly is not the point) that the former filled us "with immeasurably greater alarm and consternation" than the latter. In fact we have laid so much stress on the Church's extent of infallibility, far more from a wish to resist Dr. Dollinger than from a wish to resist M. de Montalembert. Undoubtedly from time to time general arguments against Liberal Catholicism have appeared in our pages; and we may mention as instances, two articles on "the Principles of '89," which we published respectively in October, 1864, and April, 1865. But it has happened on various occasions, that our

only concern with Liberal Catholicism has been, the availing ourselves of its history, for the purpose of illustrating and enforcing the Church's extent of infallibility. And though undoubtedly we desired to press that doctrine against the school of Montalembert, we were far more desirous of pressing it against the school of Dollinger. In fact, as regards the present writer personally, he will frankly admit, that his convictions on the deadly tendency of Liberal Catholicism have been founded a good deal more on the extraordinary emphasis with which the Church has condemned it, than on his own historical and political investigations. His own studies and interests have lain far more in theology and philosophy, than in history and ecclesiastical politics.

This is our first preliminary comment. Our second is, that, to our great gratification, our critic upholds substantially the whole view of infallibility for which we have ever contended. He disavows (p. 123) "doctrines which confine the infallibility of the Church to matters strictly of faith and morals": and (ib.) repudiates those who "exact at all events certain stringent conditions as necessary, before a document proceeding from the Holy See can be deemed infallible." He says (p. 128) that the bishops have generally referred to "the infallible character" of the Syllabus,t as to "an elementary portion of Christian doctrine;" and we may assume therefore, that he himself regards this doctrine, not only as certain but even as elementary. Moreover, in his various criticisms on ourselves, he nowhere implies that our general doctrine on infallibility has been at all exaggerated. We anticipate very great benefit from this explicit doctrinal avowal.

We now come to our article of last April. One chief accusation for several years has been urged against our course : viz., that we sow divisions in the Church; that we draw an invidious and schismatically-savouring distinction between Catholic and Catholic; that we err against Catholic charity, in

*However forbearing successive Pontiff's may have been in their language towards individual Liberal Catholics, it must not be forgotten that their language against the doctrine itself has been quite amazing in its vehemence. The proposition "that liberty of conscience is to be asserted and vindicated to every man," is denounced by them, not merely as an "absurd and erroneous opinion," but rather as an "insanity." The existing liberty of the press is characterized as "most foul, and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested."

He is speaking expressly indeed of the "Quantâ cura." But he is evidently including the Syllabus in his statement; for in the preceding page he speaks of the great "Pontifical declaration against the errors of our time, which will rank among the glorions acts of Pius IX,”

stigmatizing persons, whom we admit to be members of the Church, with the charge of holding tenets, which are forbidden by the Church herself under pain of mortal sin. A second and very subordinate accusation against us has been, that we have gone out of our way to introduce theological discussions -especially this last infallibility discussion-into a periodical which is no fit vehicle for them. Our principal purpose then in April, was to answer the principal accusation; but we had also the subordinate purpose, of answering the subordinate accusation.

In reply then to the graver accusation, we urged firstly, that at all events the fact is as we have alleged it to be; that there are various opinions, which every Catholic is forbidden sub mortali to hold, which yet do not exclude him from the Visible Church; that if any one e. g. at the present day took up Fénelon's condemned doctrine of quietism, Catholics would be bound to speak of his views with extreme severity, and yet to admit that his doctrine has not been condemned as actually heretical (pp. 363-4). So far, of course, there is no divergence between the "Month" and urseolves.

But it may be rejoined (p. 364) that, though the fact is so, yet we had no business publicly to allege it; that the Catholic may appeal indeed against such unsound believers to his diocesan or to the Holy See; but that, when arguing against them before the public, he has no business to charge them with grave disobedience to the Church's teaching. We answered (pp. 365-9), that on the contrary this very thing had always been the habit of approved writers, in arguing against condemned non-heretical error; and that the particular error of Liberal Catholicism presents in its history some emphatic exhibitions of the fact. To this the "Month" now replies in effect (p. 125), that approved writers, in arguing against Liberal Catholics, have ordinarily devoted far more space to other arguments, than to that particular argument which is derived from the Church's condemnation of the error. But if our critic will consider for a moment, he will admit that such a reply is simply irrelevant to the issue. Take e. g. any given work of Bellarmine or other controversialist, against Luther and Calvin. Very little comparatively is said by such controversialist about the Church's condemnation of these heresiarchs, simply because the fact is so obvious and undisputed. The Catholic controversialist devotes himself almost exclusively, to arguing against Lutherans and Calvinists on more general ground. To say then that_orthodox writers, in controversy with Liberal Catholicism, devote far more space to other arguments than to that particular argu

ment which is derived from the Church's condemnation, is to say no more, than that they treat Liberal Catholicism just as they treat the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresies. The real point to be debated is, whether they do or do not make it most clear to their readers, that they regard Liberal Catholicism as a condemned error; as an error which all Catholics are under a divinely-imposed obligation of renouncing. Now we are quite sure our contemporary will not deny, that they make this most clear to their readers. We are quite sure indeed he will not deny, that they make it the professed basis of their whole argument.

For instance. He speaks with most just praise of the "Civiltà Cattolica "; and says with great truth (p. 129) that "it is hardly possible, in the range of mere literature, to have a more authoritative witness to the manner in which those champions of the Church who are most thoroughly imbued with her spirit, and who write under the eye of her supreme authority, think it best to deal with questions of the day in a periodical meant for general perusal." Now we will not take the trouble of looking for extracts through the pages of the "Civiltà "; because no better illustration of what we intend can be given, than the following, which we happened to have under our notice for a different reason. It is from the number for April 10, 1867 (pp. 149-151).

If

Listen to a [certain] Christian, calling himself Catholic and Liberal: you will doubt whether he has not gone out of his mind; and the doubt is well founded; for either he does not believe that modern constitutions contain those errors which we have above recited, or else he thinks that those various principles which we have assailed cannot be condemned as errors. he believes the former, pray let him show us how modern constitutions have other foundations, ends, or means, than those above described; whereas, in fact, those who are their authors not only profess such principles, but make a boast of them. If, admitting these principles, he does not recognize them to be evil [iniqui], let him at least read the Encyclical and Syllabus, which the Vicar of Jesus Christ promulgated to the world not long since, and he will see what he has to think. Their formula of "Catholics with the Pope, Liberals with Italy," is simply founded on the doctrine of separation of Church and State, condemned in proposition 55. All the rights which they claim of overthrowing princes and monarchs are proscribed in prop. 67; liberty of worships in prop. 77 ; liberty of the press in prop. 79. All the evils connected with civil marriage are branded from prop. 65 to 74. All the secular usurpations over education are condemned from prop. 45 to 48. All the tyrannies exercised against the regular and secular clergy are denounced in prop. 49 and those succeeding. Finally, all the principles which constitute what is now called progress, liberalism, and modern civilization, are pronounced irreconcilable with the Roman Pontiff in prop. 80. If neither