the sectarian feeling that it was necessary, through a consolidation of Roman Catholics into a distinct political force, to prepare an offset to the vast aggrandizement which the fortunes of war had given to a Protestant state.1

In the French realm the control of education was exercised from the early part of the century through the University of France. Its supervision extended over all schools, except episcopal seminaries for the training of priests. Efforts were made, however, toward the middle of the century, to abridge its prerogatives. The Jesuits, who had maintained a number of establishments, though their order was without legal existence in the country, engaged in the agitation, with the design of securing enlarged scope for their own activity. Their attempt miscarried for the time being, and resulted in the closing of their houses. Still, a change was soon effected in the educational system, which enlarged the sphere of clerical supervision. By the law of 1850, elementary schools were placed under the direction of the clergy. The rule of Napoleon III., who betrayed the Second Republic and introduced the Second Empire in 1852, was in general favorable to the influence of the clergy, thus repaying them in a measure for their ready indorsement of his usurpation. However, the prerogatives of the civil power were not forgotten; there was no such

1 It may be observed also that the restrictive laws which the manœuvring of the clerical party was largely instrumental in evoking from the Prussian government, had their parallel in Roman Catholic countries. The Austrian ecclesiastical laws of 1874 fell little short of the Prussian May laws in their assertion of civil prerogatives; indeed, in some points, the former transcended the latter. They led, however, to no considerable contest, since their execution was not vigorously pressed.

sweeping surrender to the Church as was implied in the Austrian concordat; and Napoleon was regarded at Rome as a somewhat doubtful though necessary ally.

The Spanish government, during the struggle with the Carlists which followed the accession of Isabella (1833), grieved the heart of the Pope by confiscating much church property. But partial amends were made. Isabella obtained the recognition of the Pope, and his Holiness was gratified in 1851 by the concluding of a concordat, framed according to his notion of the proper relations of kingdoms to the Roman See.

This review conducts us to the Syllabus of 1864, which gives us, as was indicated, the features of the modern papacy in its reactionary phases. It is a list of eighty errors which had been reproved in papal allocutions, encyclicals, and other communications, and which Pius IX. wished to signalize before the eyes of the faithful as branded with the apostolic censures. Among the things specified as errors are the following. Strictures upon old scholastic methods and principles; the free choice of one's religion in the exercise of reason; 2 the exclusion of force from the proper instrumentalities of the Church; the separation of Church and State; the expediency of tolerating any other than the Roman Catholic

4

1 The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors culti vated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of the age and the progress of science (No. 13).

2 Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason (15).

The Church has not the power of availing herself of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power (24).

4 The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church (55).

religion; the propriety of allowing non-Catholics the public exercise of their worship; 2 the affirmation that popes and ecumenical councils have exceeded the limits of their power; 3 denial of the binding force of the Trent prescription on the form of solemnizing marriage; the assertion that a civil contract, without the sacrament, can constitute valid marriage; 5 the theory that public schools should be freed from ecclesiastical authority, should be under civil direction, and should not have the Catholic faith included in their course of study.

1 In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship (77).

2 It has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship (78).

3 The Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even com. mitted errors in defining matters of faith and morals (23).

1 The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the said council [of Trent], under penalty of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law has appointed another form, and where it decrees that this new form shall effectuate a valid marriage (71.)

5 A merely civil contract may, among Christians, constitute a true marriage; and it is false, either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that the contract is null if the sacrament be excluded (73).

The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools, open to children of all classes, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophy, and for conducting the education of the young, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, government, and interference, and should be fully subject to the civil and political power, in conformity with the will of rulers and the prevalent opinions of the age (47). This system of instructing youth, which consists in separating it from the Catholic faith and from the power of the Church, and in teaching exclusively, or at least primarily, the knowledge of natural things and the earthly ends of social life alone, may be approved by Catholics (48).

Evidently we have here the very essence of the mediæval system. Translated into a positive form, the Syllabus teaches that the Popes have always kept within the just limits of their power, even when claiming the right to dethrone princes; that religious liberty is pernicious license; and that civil governments indulge in an impious usurpation when they attempt to manage education, or to prescribe aught respecting the conditions of marriage. No wonder that one and another Roman Catholic writer, not wishing to put modern civilization entirely under the ban, has been tempted to extenuate the meaning of the Syllabus on a number of points, and in particular to relieve its sombre proscription of the maxims of religious freedom. But, as was amply shown by Gladstone in controversy with Manning and Newman, no whitewashing expedient can hide the original tint of the document.1 The proper sense of the Syllabus, unambiguous in itself, is too well supported by outside evidences to allow it to be interpreted away. Among these evidences is the version of Schrader, accompanied by a commendatory letter of the Pope. In this version, which turns the negations of the Syllabus into positive teachings, there is no amelioration of its significance. Its reprobation of religious freedom stands unobscured. But a still more authentic commentary is supplied in the acts of the Pope. His canonizing of the inquisitor Arbues was certainly no indication of affection for the principles of religious tolerance. Other acts of his testify more directly, if not more emphatically. Among the complaints preferred by him against the Spanish government in an allocution of the year 1855

1 Vaticanism: an Answer to Replies and Reproofs, 1875.

was the granting of toleration for non-Roman worship. Similarly in 1863 he specified the establishment of freedom of worship as one of the grounds of the annulling sentence which he issued against the proceedings of the government of New Grenada. In an allocution of June 22, 1868, he declared null and void fundamental laws of Austria which had been passed in the preceding December, and which established, among other items of rational liberty, freedom of the press, of religious belief, and of religious profession. In fact, it is as plain as the day that Pius IX. wished to check the current bearing Roman Catholic governments towards the concession of religious freedom, and that the Syllabus was meant to contribute to this obstructive end.

A very general conviction has prevailed that the Vatican Council would have formally sanctioned the Syllabus, had it been favored with the needful opportunity to complete its programme. That document, however, is sufficiently binding without the conciliar sanction. The slighting references to its authority which appear in Newman's "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk" are exceptional, and very likely would have helped to consign that astonishing treatise to the Index had not the author's singular position made the censure too costly. The Pope's own conception of the authority of the Syllabus admitted no such discount. If his words 1 Gladstone, Vaticanism.

2 Döllinger knew perfectly the current at Rome when he said: "Had Newman written in French, Italian, or Latin, several of his books would now be standing in the Index." (Letter to Professor Michelis, May 1, 1879.) We think however, that he should have added a second condition, namely, the injurious scandal which a committal of the said writings to the Index would have brought upon the Romanizing party in England.