of the Greek Emperor. Again (p. 27 et alibi), he alleges that there is a certain disciplinary "code of the Universal Church," which the Pope has no divinely-given power to touch. This is merely to say in other words, that the Pope is not the Church's supreme ruler on earth; but that her supreme government on earth is vested in some other man or body of men. Let him name then that man or body of men; and let him adduce Scriptural and traditional evidence for his proposition. Of course he has not made the feeblest attempt to do anything of the kind. We only wish he would.

Never has the Holy See been permitted by circumstances, to exercise the plenitude of that jurisdiction with which Christ invested it. Now the Church's unity, consolidation, and consequent welfare, are more effectually promoted, in proportion as Christ's institution can be more completely realized; and successive Pontiffs, who have felt this by a more or less unconscious instinct, have acted accordingly. In the fourth century they exercised greater authority than in anteNicene times; in the sixth greater than in the fourth; in the eighth than in the sixth. At a time when this movement was rapidly proceeding, the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals appeared. We are not here to attempt any critical comments on these Decretals, a task which would require an article to itself. We have nowhere ourselves happened to see so clear and full account of them in a short space, as in Hefele's contribution on the subject to Göschler's theological dictionary;* and to that we refer for the few facts which it will be necessary to mention. But our only concern with them here, is their bearing on Mr. Ffoulkes's argument.

He coolly throws off (p. 27) by saying that, "to the best of his belief," "no certain proof has been found"" of their having been manufactured at Rome, or by order of Rome." This is too much even for his encomiast in the " Saturday Review"; who points out as an indubitable historical fact, that the Roman See had no more to do with their manufacture than had Mr. Ffoulkes himself. That gentleman however proceeds to allege, that " she must have known from the first, or been able to ascertain, whether they came from her archives or not; yet she studiously forbore from inquiring, and said nothing." How in the world was she to know? In one point the author is undoubtedly consistent. He is bent on giving every historical event that colour, which shall make it most antagonistic to Rome. Our readers may remember, that

* We quote from the French translation: article" Pseudo-Isidore." VOL. XII.—NO. XXIV. [New Series.]

X

three years ago he made some amazing remarks on the Florentine Definition. He distorted indeed, in that wonderful way which is peculiar to himself, the Greek original of that Definition (see our number for April, 1866, pp. 550-2); but the Latin original defied even his manipulation. Accordingly he got up a theory, that the Latin original had been lost immediately after the Council; and that the existing Latin is a translation made from the Greek 150 years later. He had then no difficulty in supposing, that the infallible decree of an Ecumenical Council may have been irretrievably lost. But now he holds, that Pontiffs of the ninth and subsequent centuries could know, by consulting their "archives," whether a certain Letter were genuine, which purported to have been written by some Pope, e.g. in the days of persecution. We again ask how were they to know this? Some given Pope sees an epistle, purporting to come from one of his predecessors, indicating that in some early century the Holy See exercised that power which, as the said Pontiff knows, it indubitably possesses. What was there to awaken his suspicion? Why was he not to believe, what in that uncritical age all the world believed? It has been thought by some, that the Decretals unduly depress the Episcopate; and that their unorthodoxy therefore should have made a Pope see their spuriousness. But Hefele points out (p. 360), that their tendency was rather to exalt than depress men's notions of the episcopal office. S. Anacletus, e.g., is represented as saying that the other Apostles had "honour and power in equal fellowship with Peter;" and S. Evaristus, that the bishops are "ambassadors of God, and vicegerents of Christ."

To what then do the author's accusations amount? What did any given Pope do, which all honest men would not have done in his place? It was greatly important for the Church's welfare-and so he knew-that he should exercise as much of his divinely-given power as circumstances would permit. He was fully persuaded, through these Decretals, that certain of his predecessors in early ages had done the very thing which he now claimed to do; and he also saw the very obvious fact that, by drawing attention to this precedent, he should make this exercise of authority far less unpalatable. Men were tempted to disobey the just command of a divinelyappointed ruler-that is, they were tempted to a sinful act. By drawing attention to this supposed precedent, he much lessened their temptation; nor had he the slightest doubt that this precedent really existed. Where is the ground here for blame?

The question is wholly irrelevant to our purpose, whether

the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals did, or did not, importantly accelerate a more extensive exercise of Pontifical authority. For ourselves, we are disposed to agree with Hefele that they did not accelerate this in any great degree. He shows (pp. 368-9) that they did nothing more than express and formulize existing habits and views; and he exhibits in detail, that they hardly contain one ecclesiastical rule, which had not already been laid down before their appearance. What few novelties they do contain, he adds, never passed into practice. But let us suppose, for argument's sake, that the case had been altogether otherwise-that they had given indefinite furtherance to the practical development of the Holy See's power. What then? The only relevant question is, whether that power were divinely given; and we have already shown that it was. Mr. Ffoulkes (p. 38) apparently holds, that no real benefit can by possibility be derived from a thing in itself sinful. Does God then never draw good out of evil? Does Mr. Ffoulkes consider Judas's betrayal of Christ to have been a virtuous action? Or does he think, on the other hand, that God did not make use of that betrayal for the benefit of mankind?

We have now, we believe, gone through all the doctrinal points of this pamphlet.* No room is left us for considering its various historical statements; which indeed occupy a much more subordinate place in this, than in the author's previous works. But what may be expected as to the character of these statements? In theological and argumentative documents, such as those with which we have hitherto been so largely occupied, much protection is afforded against individual eccentricities, by the necessity of preserving logical consistency in their interpretation; of making each sentence harmonize with the general context and bearing of the argument. In history, private judgment has far wider latitude. If then on the former class of subjects our author falls into such incredible misconceptions as the reader has seen, it may be imagined what a sensational romance he will write under the name of history.

Unless indeed we refer to the remark in p. 39, that when S. Peter said to our Lord "Be that far from Thee, O Lord, this shall not be to Thee" (Matt. xvi. 22), he was already Pope, and was teaching the Church ex cathedrâ. From this Mr. Ffoulkes infers, that S. Peter's mistaken prophecy disproves the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Mr. Ffoulkes's volumes on "Christendom's Divisions" were criticised in our numbers of April and July, 1867.

In p. 21 we find a statement which, at first reading, makes one distrust one's eyes. Eugenius IV. was "the only Pope who ever presided over a

And now to conclude. Here is a writer, we will not merely say who can hardly carry on one step of reasoning

General Council in person." Why, out of the eighteen Ecumenical Councils, exactly one-half have been presided over by the Pope in person. But we suppose on reflection that, since the Photian schism, Mr. Ffoulkes would account no Council "general," which did not contain a muster of Photians in force so that even the Council of Trent does not fall under the category. In the same page he represents, if we rightly understand him, that the Pope threatened the Emperor with imprisonment in Florence till the latter should agree to the union; and adds that his "blood curdles" from merely "transcribing" the Pope's language. So distressing a physical affection must have prevented him from understanding words, which are as simple and obvious as possible. We have described the scene to which he refers, in our article on the Council of Florence (April, 1866, p. 515).

66

The same perverse mistiness characterizes Mr. Ffoulkes on matters of fact. We will give two instances which have been already exposed in the "Weekly Register." In p. 52 he says that the only zealous priest at Seville, when he was there, was a young priest who had served his time at the Brompton Oratory." And he adds the preposterous remark, that "the Brompton Oratory, that heart-stirring creation of old Oxford and Cambridge men, had sent out missionaries to evangelize Seville." It turns out (see "Weekly Register" for Jan. 30, p. 73) that the priest here referred to (whose mother was a Spaniard, his father being English) belonged to the Seville Oratory; that he never belonged to any other religious community whatever; and that he never received any instruction from, nor had any kind of connection with, either of the two English Oratories. Mr. Ffoulkes not only has not apologized for this misrepresentation, but denies that any apology is due. See his letter in the "Weekly Register" of Feb. 20.

The second instance is much more serious than the first; and occurs in close juxtaposition with it. He deposes, that the priest of a certain small Spanish village had "the honours of his house always done by one who went by the name of his 'cugina'; but I was laughed at for supposing meant the relationship that we understand by it." It turns out, that there is no such word in the Spanish language as "cugina"; the only words at all similar being "cocina" a "kitchen," and "cocinera" a "cook." Signor Guibara, the Spanish gentleman who has drawn attention to this (see "Weekly Register" of Feb. 20, p. 121) adds that "in Spain it is the custom in many parts for the servants to eat at table with their masters." Mr. Ffoulkes in reply declares he " never dreamt of the word 'cugina' being a Spanish word"; but that the word was used to him, as to one not knowing Spanish. Now what he had said was, that this female "went by the name of" the priest's "cugina"; not that she had been so called to himself.

Further, Mr. Ffoulkes point blank refuses Signor Guibara's most reasonable request "to give him the means of identifying this scandalous priest." He will not, forsooth, "turn informer." He has no scruple in bringing the foulest charge against the whole priesthood of a country: for in his pamphlet he says that the respect paid to this priest proves "such things" to be "not uncommon" in Spain. He adduces this charge so lightly, that he is content to base it on a statement of facts, which on his own showing is grievously inaccurate. But when he is asked by an indignant Spanish gentleman to supply means for testing the truth of his most odious accusation, he replies that "not for a moment" will he entertain such a thought. How could such conduct be duly characterized, if he were a person really competent -as most other educated men are competent-to understand the meaning of his own words and acts?

without a fallacy, but who can hardly read a theological document without understanding it to mean just the reverse of what it says; who cannot even be trusted for not mixing up two totally heterogeneous treatises into one monstrous imaginary compound (see pp. 289-90); and who has not so much as that amount of intelligence, which would enable him to see his own intellectual disqualifications. Confident in his powers, he sets himself to study theology and ecclesiastical history, and to criticise with perfect freedom each one of the three societies which he regards as jointly constituting the Catholic Church. He arrives at a conclusion, the like of which has never before been imagined by Catholic, Photian, or Anglican; and, having arrived at it, he proposes it, not as a theory on trial, but as the one indubitable truth. So indubitable indeed, that, strong in its confident assumption, he does not hesitate to charge the whole series of Popes (of those whom he himself considers to occupy a higher place in the Church than any other individuals whomsoever) with the heaviest offences against both truth and peace. "Rome has abundantly proved during the last thousand years that she can be a most negligent, hesitating, fickle, self-seeking, hypocritical guide" (p. 20). She "rose "" to her "eminence .. most unrighteously by fraud and force" (p. 27); the schisms of Christendom have been caused by "the flagrant unfaithfulness and injustice of her governmental policy, both as regards doctrine and discipline" (p. 37); she has exhibited qualities the reverse of "honesty, justice, truthfulness, meekness, and self-denial " (p. 39); the Popes "countenanced" iniquity, "because it brought gain and aggrandisement to themselves and their See (p. 62).

And what is this wonderful theory of his, which leads him to such complacent utterance of these wild reproaches? When was there a parallel to it in its monstrous extravagance? It was infallibly decided in the fifth century, says the author, that no further definition of faith would ever be lawful; and an irreversible disciplinary law was enacted, visiting clerical offenders against the above declaration with deposition, and lay offenders with anathematization. At the very next Ecumenical Council, the whole Church offended against this declaration and incurred this penalty, by adopting further definitions of faith; nor have either Catholics, Photians, or Anglicans ever receded from these further definitions. He does not explain whether offending clerics do or do not incur anathematization as well as deposition (see pp.274-7 of our article); and we will therefore take the two alternatives successively. According to the latter alternative, he considers that for more than a