individual, we have no right to regard that process as a political danger. An Anglican High-Churchman might deplore the secession of millions of his fellow-countrymen to the ranks of evangelical Dissent, wherein they would be deprived of the 'benefit' of sacerdotal absolution; an evangelical Protestant might deplore the secession of numbers into a system wherein external observances eclipse, when they do not destroy, convictions the nearest and dearest to his spiritual life; but no politician, as a politician, has any right to touch those grave divergences, except so far as it may be necessary to study how to secure to each the fullest spiritual liberty compatible with the possession of a like liberty by others. But if any sect chooses to constitute as a portion of its dogma an assumed right, nay, obligation, to tyrannize over the souls and bodies of other men, interfering with them in almost every thing that makes life worth the possessing: if a sect is so bent on such domination over others that it enters upon and carries out protracted schemes for the accomplishment of this end-allying itself with foreigners for that object, and adopting a foreign and hostile sovereign as one to whom alone all loyalty is duethen, nothing but the contemptible insignificance of the sect can justify the silence of the wise and the good. Mr. Arthur proves, by the clearest historical events of the last twenty years, that such a scheme has been deliberately planned, and the weapons for future mischief most artfully forged. The aggressor is the Vatican Church, the most powerful culprits are the ecclesiastical favourites of his Holiness. The author of The Pope, the Kings and the People proves that it has not been for nought that at the Coronation the Pontiff was solemnly addressed with the admonition, "Take thou the tiara adorned with the triple crown, and know that thou art the

Father of Princes and of Kings, and art the Governor of the World.'

The governor so invested rules over no insignificant sect. To him alone the proud boast belongs that he has his subjects amongst all races, in all the nations, in all the provinces of the world. He reigns over no undisciplined host. Whatever was wanting in discipline and organization has been supplied during the last few years. France has not provided against a new German war so carefully, so thoroughly, as the Vatican for the subjugation of those outside her fold; a subjugation to be attained by legislation, by war, or by any other means; in order that the Pope, as King of Rome and Central Italy, may govern from the Quirinal the souls, bodies, properties, literature, liberties of all his spiritual subjects everywhere. Part of the programme is, that for the sake of the more entire prostration of those in communion with the Holy See, those outside of that communion must be deprived of their liberties, lest bondsmen living amongst the free, should themselves aspire to liberty.

No rational man who will take the trouble to read in Mr. Arthur's work the faithful abstract of the Papal decrees, now infallible, can entertain a moment's doubt on this subject.

When the Neo-Catholic Roman Church claims liberty, she tells us that she means, liberty to destroy liberty; liberty to disobey; liberty to plot. Liberty to the Church means the right of putting all ecclesiastical law in force, and calling upon the State to execute such law.

The Church is a perfect Society. The Church is completely free. The Church has the direct authority of Christ for her rights. The State cannot define the rights of the Church. The State cannot even limit the exercise of those rights.' (Vol. i., p. 63.) And the Church is He is probably the

now one man.

richest man in Europe. He desires to organize a military force directly under himself, therewith to supplement those regiments he hopes hereafter to obtain from his vassal kings, and those soldiers who, in the event of a war in which the Papacy takes a side, will, to save their souls from hell, desert, when practicable, the colours of any hostile sovereign, to serve instead the supreme 'governor of the world.'

A sudden movement of enthusiasm; a mob tumult, though the mob may number a million; a bombastic threat from a ruler of questionable power: not one of these, not all combined, would excite grave apprehension in the mind of a politician. But a ruler who never dies, who never changes his object, who sometimes loses grasp of his means, sometimes prudently conceals or slackens them when it can be proved that such a ruler has been for eighteen years carefully forging his instruments and training his subjects; that, in so doing, he has been developing, to an alarming magnitude, the traditional policy of his dynasty; then is it not time for thoughtful men to examine what it all means, and to what it tends?

In England we have been for long accustomed to discuss theological questions with men who use words in a non-natural sense; with others who use 'tall talk' never intended by the utterers to be translated into act; whilst some invariably exaggerate when speaking on religious and ecclesiastical matters, as if exaggeration ought to be the special prerogative of Theology, and to be worn by clerics like a Geneva gown or broad-brim hat, as a sort of panoply. The warning in this article-not written by a Wesleyan though appearing in the official Methodist organ, and it is hoped likely to be read not only in England but by co-members of that, the most numerous, denomination in

America-will be regarded as the verbiage of an excited alarmist: it will be said, 'It is not fair to pin the Neo-Catholics down to the literal meaning of the Papal utterances. We have some very nice Roman Catholic neighbours; they are as good and sensible as other people, and as to those denunciations of liberty of worship, liberty of the press, heretics, Bible societies, and the rest, our friends seem not to know anything about the matter; they say that we must have been misinformed; that they, for their part, are almost more considerate toward their Protestant servants than are many Protestants as to poor Irish girls in service; that Roman Catholics should be judged personally and as we find them, and not by theological expressions and Papal decrees; that though, of course, they intend always to obey those decrees, practically such things never come at all to this country, unless now and then in the form of a jubilee granting a Plenary Indulgence; which Protestants may disbelieve, as Roman Catholics disbelieve in the Methodist Conference and the Bench of Bishops.'

All this sounds very plausible, and when uttered by an ordinary Roman Catholic layman it is meant to be true; but if uttered by Cardinal Manning it would be known to be false. It is false: Papal decrees as affecting the individual go, through the Bishop, to the Confessor, to the Penitent. If a miscreant would poison a city, he would not convey the poison to each man and woman, and say, 'Take and eat ;' he would let the poison dissolve in the reservoir and encourage all the inhabitants to imbibe its waters. Occasionally the Clergy are enjoined by the Bishop to proclaim from the altar some decree affecting civic, domestic or personal conduct; but when the order is deemed inexpedient for the public ear, a private letter is sent to each Priest with instructions how to act,

and under what circumstances to refuse absolution.

Now refusal of absolution means to the Roman Catholic certain damnation. The Pope is absolute over all those who approach the sacraments. Annual confession is of obligation from the age of seven. Confession

and Holy Communion at Easter (in England between Ash Wednesday and Low Sunday) is binding on every one under pain of mortal sin, from the period of First Communion, now generally made when the child is from ten to twelve years of age. But monthly Communion is earnestly recommended to all persons; weekly Communion to many, especially amongst young men and women, and amongst the better educated. Confession is essential before marriage; and by recent rescripts, a Roman Catholic cannot be married to a nonCatholic unless the non-Catholic promises in writing that, under any possible circumstance, all the children shall be brought up Roman Catholic, and that he will be married only by the Roman Catholic parish Priest or his substitute. Confession is also of obligation, when at all attainable, in presence of any danger to life. Surely a Government possessing such an instrumentality is not devoid of power! Moreover, it must be remembered that the science of the Confessional regards not only deeds and thoughts, but above all, intentions. A Priest erred who, hearing confessions in an open air 'station,' asked an Irish boy, Would you rather die than commit one mortal sin?' 'Yes, and shure, yer Rivirince; kilt and flayed and all!' Then, my boy, would you rather eat that toad than commit one mortal sin?' 'Yer Rivirince,...well, I wouldn't eat that toad to plase any body.' The Priest erred, for he raised a difficulty by the suggestion of an uncalled-for hypothesis, and the result was mental disobedience. So there might doubtless be many per

6

sons who would refuse obedience if a conflict arose betwixt patriotism and absolution. Moreover, in some nationalities, especially the Celtic, there is a happy human inconsistency often very embarrassing to ecclesiastical domination.

But, it may be urged, you exaggerate the meaning and effect of the Papal language. No sect wishes to be bound by all its formularies. Previously to 1870, that statement, somewhat

qualified, would have been a legitimate line of defence. Old decrees, not then deemed infallible, had done their mischief in their own day, and had been lying dormant under library dust for a couple of centuries; and certain modern decrees had been of a local character, and though not very old, might be ignored. But whatever Roman Catholic controversialists formerly tried to palliate by such considerations has been revived and laboriously moulded into a Syllabus, so as to be convenient for all future use; and having been promulgated by the Pope and since by the Vatican Council, it has been doubly declared to be an enduring portion of Divinely Revealed Truth essential for the just government of nations. When will Protestants be convinced that the teachings and anathemas of such a document as the

Syllabus are really meant; that instead of taking the language at its minimum. it was intended to be realized at its maximum? Mr Arthur points this out with great felicity and truth:

'While I was working with these additional helps appeared Mr. Gladstone's Expostulation. The great amount of knowledge it betrayed contrasted with one's previous idea of the state of information on the subject among our public men. The controversy which followed might have brought some temptation to haste, had it not also brought proof that it was even more necessary than I had supposed to beware of assuming that phrases, modes of conception and projects well understood in Italy or Germany, were at all understood. here. Some of those who reviewed Mr. Glad-

stone took for strange what in all countries in the south or centre of Europe would have been taken as familiar, and for doubtful what in Rome or Munich was as clear as day. Accredited terms and phrases were treated as inventions; by some as inventions of genius, by others of animosity. It was often more than hinted that principles and designs habitually proclaimed at the Vatican were ascribed to Priests only by opponents. Not unfrequently a gentleman would seem to think it more generous to attribute his Protestant ideas to Ultramontanes than to take it for granted that they preferred their own. It was incredible how political questions pregnant with future controversies, perhaps with future wars, were evaded as theology. The replies to Mr. Gladstone placed the ignorance of the English public on the subject in a different but a very impressive light. It is often said abroad, by those who know us, that no nation in Europe is so liable as we are to treat gravely statements from Priests or their advocates which any reasonable amount of information would render entertaining. The reviews of these replies showed a growing sense of the interests involved, but intensified one's feeling that the elements of clear understanding were wanting. Men did not know the terms, the facts, the publications or the political

doctrines of the movements under discussion. Had what has been written in our best journals during the last twenty years from Italy, or even during the last five from Rome and Berlin, been well read, it would have led to study, and in that case Dr. Newman and others would not have had so cheap a laugh at our ignorance of what is meant because of our false interpretation of what is said.'

Mr. Arthur is too conscientious a writer to imitate the example of Cardinal Manning and such like partisans and produce a True History out of

his inner consciousness and wishes. He has laboriously consulted 'official documents; histories having the sanction of the Pope or of Bishops; scholastic works of the present Pontificate and of recognized authority; periodicals and journals, avowed organs of the Vatican or of its policy, with books and pamphlets by Bishops and other Ultramontane writers;' as also 'the writings of Liberal Catholics.' He has unceasingly fortified his statements and illustrated his narrative

from the Documenta ad Illustrandum of Professor Friedrich, who was an official theologian at the Vatican Council, and the Sammlung of Professor Friedberg. He has perused carefully all the numbers of the Civiltà Cattolica, a periodical which, when the Dominicans declined to conduct such, was entrusted by the Pope to some distinguished Jesuits, who were for that object partially detached from the Society, incorporated as a College, and freed from the Dominican Censorship. Thus our author obtains from its pages a serial history with official documents and chronicle of events.

He visited Rome, Munich, Bonn, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna and other towns wherein Professors and statesmen placed not only libraries but documents at his service: amongst the latter we might specially allude to the valuable collection of pamphlets and other records,-carefully preserved and added to, during many years,-kindly submitted to him by Drs. Dollinger and Reusch. Vitelleschi, Schrader, Tarquini, Cecconi, and such like learned works on both sides, have been carefully and abundantly used, whilst the productions of Veuillot, Manning, and other partisans have been utilized wherever

truth permitted. The last-named authors, though worthless as historians, deserve attention; the one for his pen dipped in gall, the other for his ecclesiastical rank, and both for the high regard the Pope testified to them. The author has wisely taken time to master all these varied sources of information, thus producing a History, and not a mere collection of interesting extracts. Whoever wishes to study the history of the Syllabus and the Vatican Council, subjects of ever increasing importance and interest to the politician and the theologian, cannot dispense with The Pope, the Kings and the People. It is impossible but that in such a work some minor errors must exist, but we are con

vinced that Roman Catholics who desire real information on the true history of these great events, will be compelled to seek it in that calm, impartial, judicial narrative.

On December 8th, 1864, being the tenth anniversary of the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception, and the day succeeding to the one on which Pio Nono set in motion the preparations for the Vatican Council, he published the Encyclical Quanta cura and its accompanying Syllabus of Errors. The prevailing object of this important document is to condemn the 'liberty of damnation :' the error that liberty of worship is a personal right and that the State may treat various religions on a footing of equality. The official letter conveying these documents declares that they are sent to the Hierarchy by direct command of the Pope, that they might have all the errors and the pernicious doctrines which have been condemned by him under their eyes.' The Syllabus thus forms a series of condemned propositions, drawn from official and authoritative utterances of Pius IX: a collection of 'errors,' condemned in judgments pronounced by him as supreme judge of Christendom. This Syllabus was in 1867 definitely confirmed by the Pope, then by the collective episcopate, in 1870 by the Fathers of the Vatican Council, and again ratified by the Pope. In the Papal allocution, it was declared to the Bishops to be 'the rule of their teaching.'

The Syllabus fell like a thunderbolt amongst the Clergy and the few thoughtful observers amongst the Roman Catholic laity. Efforts were made to soften down or to explain away its utterances, so as to harmonize its teachings with justice, conscience, rectitude and rational liberty. Until 1870, the consolation remained that it was not an infallible utterance, that, at the worst, it only bound in foro externo. After the decree of

Infallibility, such a vision of hope vanished; all previous ex-cathedrâ decrees rose then into the rank of infallible teachings: the Syllabus was even specially adverted to for that object. The subtle mind of Dr. Newman, in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk, strove to deprive it of any special authority, by a process of reasoning alluded to by Mr. Arthur, as containing 'assertions the most unaccountable in the history of our literature.'

'First Dr. Newman tells us that we do not know who put it together, then that the Pope has done it, or has had it done. Again he tells us that it is not Cardinal Antonelli's, and then more than once calls it Antonelli's, as if his authorship of the document was an established point on which arguments might be grounded. Dr. Newman in this manner procures for himself a double set of premises, which he employs throughout, with frequent shifting. His argument now assumes the affirmative, namely, that the Syllabus is the work of the Pope; and now it assumes the negative, that the Syllabus is not the work of the Pope and this is what the English press with, so far as we know, unanimity agrees to call logical.'

:

Amongst other valuable observations on that Letter, Mr. Arthur thus alludes to Dr. Newman's assertion, 'There is not a single word in the Encyclical to show that the Pope in it is alluding to the Syllabus:'

"This is said to refute an allegation of Mr. Gladstone, which Dr. Newman calls "marvellously unfair." That allegation is that the Encyclical virtually, though not expressly, includes the whole of the errors condemned. It will be seen by any one who refers to our own remarks upon the Encyclical (pp. 5-7) that had Mr. Gladstone read it as we do, he would not have written what he did. He would have written,... that the Encylical includes the whole of these condemnations, not by reciting them, but by clearly expressed reference. What he did say, instead of being unfair, comes short of what is required by the evidence contained in the documents. The reference in the one to the other is formal.... The Encyclical is signed by Pius IX. The Syllabus is headed by his name.'

If we are to be taught to explain away language so that it means its