Church History - Later Modern Times

by
Sisters Notre Dame

Original Copyright 1907

All rights reserved. This book and all parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form without prior permission of the publisher.

www.heritage-history.com

Table of Contents

Front Matter
Pioneers of the French
The French Revolution
Catholic Emancipation
Papacy and Empire
Catholic Emancipation (cont.)
Catholic Revival in France
Revival in Germany and England
The Church and Liberalism
Papacy in Captivity
Propagation of the Faith
Short List of Books

Pioneers of the French Revolution

I. Jansenism

France, the eldest daughter of the Church, had hitherto withstood the most furious attacks of heresy, and had passed almost unscathed through the tempest which threatened during the sixteenth century to submerge the bark of Peter. Though Calvinism had infected certain parts of the country, the disease had been isolated and finally almost destroyed, as much by the strong Catholic feeling of the people as by the efforts of Church and State. But the powers of evil were determined to win a permanent footing in this fair portion of Christendom. They had need of skilful tactics to effect an entrance, and in proportion to the difficulty of the task were the deep-laid plans, by which they at length succeeded. Not in the soil of sunny France, but in the gloomy marshes of the Netherlands was the poisonous seed sown and the noxious weed nurtured, until the time should come for its transplantation.

While the University of Louvain was resounding with theological disputes arising from the innovations of the so-called Reformers, the doctrine of Divine Grace was a constant subject of controversy. This doctrine had, in the early ages of the Church, proved a stumbling-block, first to Pelagians and afterwards to Semi-Pelagians. Then it was that St. Augustine, by his vigorous defence of the truth, became on this important question the chief authority for future generations.

In the midst of the turmoil, a certain doctor of Louvain, Michael de Bay, known to history by the Latinized name of Baius, formulated a number of propositions dealing with grace. His work was brought before the Sorbonne, and, in 1560, eighteen of the points contained in it were censured. No impression having been made on the author, who simply disregarded the censure, the case was taken to Rome, where, in 1567, Pope Pius V. condemned seventy-nine of the propositions as heretical. Baius retracted his errors, and died in 1589 reconciled to the Church.

So the matter might have rested. But another Netherlander was to give his name to a heresy not circumscribed in its effects, as had been that of his master Baius. Cornelius Jansen, afterwards Bishop of Ypres, in Flanders, was born in Holland in 1585. In the course of his education he reached the University of Louvain, where he soon became distinguished in Theology. Passionately devoted to the study of the writings of St. Augustine, he went so far as to read into them a doctrine which the Saint would have been the first to repudiate. Besides publishing several commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, Jansenius wrote incessantly on the questions of the day, and his manuscripts, deeply tainted with Calvinism and Baianism, made a bulky collection, which he had the intention of bringing out in the form of a book. As the work did not appear until two years after his death, its publication cannot with certainty be attributed to him. However this may be, the Bishop of Ypres died in 1638 without having attracted any considerable share of public attention, and with the reputation of a not unorthodox prelate.

The evil genius of Jansen and the mainspring of, the heresy which bears his name was the French Abbe du Verger de Hauranne, better known from the title of his abbacy as St. Cyran. The two met, first at Louvain and again in France, where Jansenius had gone to recruit his health. St. Cyran appears not only to have adopted and encouraged the heterodox notions of his friend, but also to have gained some ascendancy over him. It is probable also that he obtained possession of the Bishop's writings either before or immediately after the author's death. Though accounts differ, there is evidence to prove that Jansenius, feeling his last moments approaching, wished to burn the manuscripts. Search was made for them by his attendants, but they were not forthcoming, and he passed into eternity without securing their destruction. In 1640 the book was published at Louvain under the name "Augustinus," and attributed to the late Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres.

A mystery hangs round the Abbe de St. Cyran. So close was his disguise that few were able to detect in the austerity of his life the rigid Calvinistic principles by which he was governed. But St. Vincent de Paul had seen him throw off the mask and declare his real sentiments, in the hope of winning himself as a new proselyte. Cardinal Richelieu, from political motives, took vigorous measures to prevent the venom from spreading. " Before the publication of the Augustinus, "says Father Dalgairns, in his admirable little work on Devotion to the Heart of Jesus—"before what was called Jansenism existed, the eagle eye of Richelieu had been fixed on St. Cyran, and the future heresiarch had been lodged in Vincennes. The act may have been arbitrary, but there was abundant evidence of conspiracy against the Church in the huge collection of manuscripts, enough, we are told, to fill forty volumes folio, found in his cabinet. When entreated to release St. Cyran from his prison, Richelieu answered: 'If Luther and Calvin had been dealt with as I have dealt with St. Cyran, France and Germany would have been spared the torrents of blood which have inundated them for fifty years.' "On being restored to freedom after Richelieu's death, St. Cyran posed as a victim of persecution, and succeeded in rallying round him a goodly company of nobles and courtiers, with ladies of high degree like Madame de Sevigne, and austere nuns like Mere Angelique Arnauld, who supported his opinions and made the fashionable world ring with his praises. The most influential of his followers were the group formed by the Arnauld family, of whom Antoine Arnauld, a doctor of the Sorbonne, was the chief.

It was St. Cyran who introduced the "Augustinus "into France. Its appearance was the signal for a storm of mingled applause and condemnation. Seven of its propositions were laid before the Sorbonne in 1649. They were delated to Rome, and in 1653 five of them were censured as heretical by a Bull of Pope Innocent X. The erroneous nature of their teaching is briefly and clearly shown by Father Dalgairns in the following passage: "The author affirmed that our dear and blessed Redeemer did not die upon the cross for all men, but only for the predestinate; that the rest of mankind did not even receive from God sufficient grace to avoid mortal sin; while the just, who were ultimately saved, had a grace conferred upon them which reduced them to mere machines, since it necessitated their wills, and deprived them of the power of resistance."

The clergy of France and Belgium accepted the Pope's Bull without opposition. Strange to say, the Jansenists accepted it also, but in so doing they merely retired behind their entrenchments. The condemnation, they declared, could not affect them, since the heretical propositions were not really contained in the "Augustinus." They were, in their own opinion, loyal children of the Church, and no heresy was to be found among them. Thus they remained within the fold, protesting their innocence, while their errors spread with alarming rapidity through France and the Netherlands.

But their chief stronghold was the Abbey of Port Royal, near Paris, where the Arnauld family reigned supreme. Antoine Arnauld's gifted sister, Angelique, had at an early age been appointed Abbess of this community. From a state of relaxation only too common in those days, she had gradually won over the nuns to the strictest observance of their duties. In this reform she had been supported by her brother, and by her talented and devoted sister Agnes. But the virtue of humility was wanting, and this alone could have preserved them from Jansenism. One of the saddest episodes in the history of this gloomy and repulsive heresy is the lapse of these two remarkable women, with the nuns who depended upon them, all fatally misled by the false mysticism of St. Cyran. Schools were set up at Port Royal for the education of children in Jansenistic tenets; Mere Angelique and her nuns took charge of the girls, while the "Gentlemen of Port Royal" undertook the care of the boys, and directed the work of both schools. So great was the reputation of the professors, among whom were men of genius like Pascal, that an undeserved importance has been attached to their methods of instruction. Their schools at no time numbered more than fifty scholars.

From the days when Baius first broached his heterodox opinions, the Jesuits, always on the alert to detect and expose error, had been the most zealous opponents of the heresy. They were now fiercely attacked by the Jansenists, and the pen of Pascal was employed to cast ridicule upon them, in his "Provincial Letters." The brilliant wit of this misguided genius veiled his inveterate prejudice and defective logic, so that the "Letters" were then, as indeed they still are, much overestimated. In the heat of the conflict, they were considered as the death-blow of the Society of Jesus, and it cannot be denied that the harm they did was great. The unreasoning multitude adopted prejudices which turned to the detriment of religion generally, and contributed not a little to the causes which led to the terrible French Revolution.

Time after time the Jansenistic errors were condemned by the Holy See, yet the sect lived on, sailing, as it were, under false colours—appearing to belong to the bark of Peter, yet covertly refusing allegiance to the Head of the Church. At last, in 1713, by the celebrated Bull "Unigenitus," Pope Clement XI. declared, in words which left no loophole for evasion, that all who adopted or supported the tenets of the "Augustinus" were unmistakably in opposition to the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church. But incalculable mischief had already been done. The very austerity and external holiness of life professed by the sect, and by the Port Royalists in particular, tended to insinuate the poison among devout Catholics. Frequent Communion was discountenanced, confidence in God's mercy diminished, and a false dependence on rigid practices took the place of the childlike happiness and cheerfulness in the service of God so distinctive of true Catholic piety.

BOSSUET.

It must not be supposed, however, that preachers and doctors were sleeping at their posts while the Jansenistic errors stealthily crept into the fold of the Church. From the first there had not been wanting saints and holy men, who by speech and writing opposed the advancing enemy, and fought step by step for the ground. St. Vincent de Paul was one of the first to raise the alarm. St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal declined to admit Angelique Arnauld, when she sought to enter the Order of the Visitation. The Jesuits were always in the forefront of the battle, and we have seen how virulently they were attacked by Pascal, who was only the instrument of more designing and unscrupulous men. Bossuet, a little later, condemned in vigorous terms the false teachings of the Jansenists, and, in a letter written in 1665 to the nuns of Port Royal, eloquently exhorted them to renounce the heresy. The exquisite tact of the illustrious Fenelon was never more sweetly and persuasively exercised than in advising the practice of frequent Communion to persons who, though desiring it, were in danger of being held back by the groundless fears originating in Jansenism. Others there were, like Christopher de Beaumont, Archbishop of Paris, who, with many of the Bishops, did not hesitate to incur the enmity of these powerful adversaries, and endure persecution in defence of their flocks, exposed to the fury of ravening wolves.

But succour was at hand, more than sufficiently efficacious to counteract the chilling influences of that period of darkness and desolation. As of old, when all might well have seemed lost to the Apostles on the lake, when night had closed in around them, and they were labouring against the wind, so now did our Lord Himself come in person to prove to His afflicted people that His arm was not shortened nor His presence wholly withdrawn. From a convent of the Visitation there suddenly shone forth a bright and burning light, which has continued and intensified down to our own days. The apparitions of our Lord to Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque are well known to all devout clients of the Sacred Heart. In the Middle Ages—the Ages of Faith—He had told St. Gertrude that He was reserving this devotion for later times, when faith and charity should have grown cold, and when men would require a further stimulus to His love and service. Surely, if ever, such help was needed now, when Calvinism on the one hand and Jansenism on the other, had succeeded in wrapping round Christian souls the cold mists of distrust in God and exaggerated terror of His judgments. The Sacred Heart, as the symbol of the friendship of God with man, was the most decisive, as it was the most consoling, proof that such doctrines were not from God nor of God.

Pope Pius X., by his decrees concerning daily Communion, silenced once and for ever the disputes of theologians on the subject. "The poison of Jansenism," he says, "did not entirely disappear "after the decrees of various Popes. "The controversy as to the dispositions requisite for the lawful and laudable frequentation of the Holy Eucharist survived the declarations of the Holy See; so much so, indeed, that certain theologians of good repute judged that daily Communion should be allowed to the faithful only in rare cases and under many conditions." But this declaration is final. Rome has spoken, the cause is at an end.

II. Gallicanism

Jansenism, as we have seen, attacked the Church from within, Gallicanism oppressed it from without. Certain ill-defined rights of feudal times were still claimed by the Kings under the name of "Gallican Liberties." One of these, the "Regalia," secured to the Sovereign the revenues and patronage of vacant sees in some of the provinces. This led to the bestowal of benefices on younger sons of the nobility, who frequently entered the ecclesiastical state for the sole purpose of being promoted to bishoprics. Abbacies were given to unworthy persons with no vocation for the religious life, and disorders of many kinds were thus introduced into communities. Angelique Arnauld, for instance, became Abbess of Port Royal in her twelfth year; but she was exceptionally gifted, and the very relaxation of the nuns under her charge was the cause of her conversion to extreme asceticism.

The manifold branches of error, springing from the same root, bear in this a distorted resemblance to the one and indivisible Truth. Hence the close connection between Gallicanism and Jansenism, however strongly contrasted they may at first sight appear. Jansenism was in reality a reaction against abuses, largely due to Gallicanism. With the exception of the Abbe de St. Cyran, its adherents were all animated, at least in its earlier stages, by a sincere desire to live reformed lives. It was by playing on this desire that their leader attached them to his cause.

Louis XIV. was an autocrat, and his well known saying, "L'etat c'est moi," is the key to his attitude towards Church as well as State. He aspired to hold the reins of spiritual power in conjunction with those of temporal authority. His ministers and courtiers were aware of this weakness, and encouraged it by their flattery. The Jansenists among them, angry at having been obliged to sign a retraction of their errors, were ready to seize any opportunity of revenge upon Rome. The King provided them with a favourable occasion by extending the right of "Regalia" beyond its ancient limits, and thus incurring the Pope's disapprobation. The Jesuits were represented as actively endeavouring to advance the Roman claims and to deprive the Gallican Church of its independence. In order to settle these questions, the King was urged to hold a council of the French clergy.

Up to this point there had been no regular ecclesiastical action in the matter. When the council was called in 1682, its members were carefully chosen, under pressure from the Government, so that the votes might be entirely in the royal interest. In spite of the absence of some of the most distinguished theologians, such as Bourdaloue, Mabillon, Fenelon and others, the resolutions of the Assembly were issued under the title of "Declaration of the French Clergy." The Archbishop of Paris was a mere tool of the State. Bossuet, almost the only Bishop of note who took part in the so-called council, was under obligations to the King, and was not magnanimous enough to set his duty to the Church above human considerations. He accepted, though with reluctance, the important part assigned to him, and pronounced the opening speech. The four famous articles embodying the "Gallican Liberties" were also his production. They may be shortly stated as follows, in the words of Cardinal Newman:

"1. That the Pope could not interfere with the temporal concerns of Princes directly or indirectly.

"2. That in spiritual matters he was subject to a general council.

"3. That the rules and usages of the Gallican Church were inviolable.

"4. That the Pope's decision in points of Faith was not infallible, unless attended by the consent of the Church."

On the condemnation of these articles by Pope Innocent XI., Bossuet defended himself by representing that he had kept their tenor within the limits of moderation, and that, had he not done so, the extreme Gallicans would have gone much farther, and perhaps ended in schism. But his conduct was inexcusable. "The fault of Bossuet," says Bishop Chatard, "was that he was weak, and could not resolve to forfeit royal favour for the glory of suffering in a just cause."

FENELON

Fenelon spoke strongly against the articles, declaring that the "Gallican Liberties" meant the slavery of Church to State. Louis himself was alarmed at the dangerous proximity of schism and took measures that the affair should be withdrawn as much as possible from public notice. He was soon, however, embroiled in European wars, and, though he submitted to the Pope's decree, took no measures to enforce it. The consequence was that unprincipled men holding office in Church or State made no scruple to advance these opinions when it suited their purpose. Thus they kept up the dispute, and continued the process of gradually slackening the bonds of religion by the systematic destruction of belief in the Holy See as a central authority in matters of Faith. Gallican pretensions lasted through the dark days of the French Revolution, were renewed in an intensified form by Napoleon Bonaparte, and did not quite die out until the definition of Papal Infallibility by Pius IX. in 1870.

III. Philosophism

The self-styled philosophers of the eighteenth century were the next enemies the Church had to encounter. Their system was the natural and logical outcome of the religious upheaval of the sixteenth century, combined with the paganizing influences of the later Renaissance. When man casts off his allegiance to lawful authority, denies the right of the Church to be his guide, and sets up his own private judgment as a beacon light, he must infallibly fall a prey to the demon of free thought. It is only a matter of time and downward progress. The process begun by Luther and Calvin still goes on in our own days, and will not cease till all men have ranged themselves on one side or the other—within the pale of the Catholic Church or in the rival camp of Infidelity. It is futile to hope that any form of Christianity can long exist conjointly with private interpretation of Scripture. Man requires by his very nature a living voice to solve his doubts, a light to guide him safely through the shoals and quicksands which beset his course, an infallible authority to direct his steps as he pursues the dreary path of his mortal pilgrimage. As well might the ship's captain dispense with the pilot amid the rocks of unknown seas, the Alpine traveller leave his guide in the valley while he ascends into the snows, or the wayfarer in a strange country set at naught the sign-posts and landmarks which point out the road to his destination, as the would-be Christian refuse to hear the voice and follow the light left on earth by the Son of God in His living and visible Church.

Though Philosophism, properly so called, was a distinctively French product, it owed its origin to Protestantism as developed among the Teutonic nations. The German Lutheran, Leibnitz, the Hebrew Pantheist, Spinoza, the rationalist Englishmen, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and their followers, had far more influence in the France of the eighteenth century than their predecessor Descartes, Frenchman though he was. According to Bossuet, the chief danger of Cartesianism lay in the misleading, rather than heterodox, nature of its principles. The misinterpretation of phrases, such as "Cogito, ergo sum," apart from their context, has frequently led students of Descartes' system into serious error. Meanwhile, Jansenism, Gallicanism, and the prevailing vices of French society provided a rich soil for the development of a new crop of tares among the wheat.

The literary circles of Paris, like those of Athens in the time of St. Paul, "employed themselves in nothing else but either in hearing or in telling something new." In the infidel writings of Voltaire and Rousseau, together with those of the Encyclopedists, Diderot, D'Alembert, Condorcet, and others, Frenchmen of this type found the novelty they delighted in, and the poison was sweetened by the most exquisite charms of language. Philosophism appeared at the moment when the French tongue seemed to have attained absolute perfection, at the moment too, when a French audience was best able to appreciate its perfection. The elegant pens of these false philosophers set religion aside, and enthroned reason in her stead in the minds of men long before the sacrilegious scenes of the Revolution gave reality to their dreams of liberty, equality and fraternity, so ably advocated by Rousseau in his "Social Contract." Pure reason and the sovereignty of the people were to be in future the ruling forces of the world. God was to be banished from His own creation, and a free and untrammeled humanity was to make the earth a paradise of delight. The impious doctrines contained in the "Social Contract "were supported and explained to the world by Rousseau's still more impious novels.

Voltaire's attacks were chiefly directed against the Catholic Church, and, through her, against the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. But his cynicism, and the ridicule he cast upon all that is holy were perhaps less dangerous than the seductive glamour of Rousseau. Men and women who feared to join with Voltaire in blaspheming the God of their fathers, and in revolting against the Church of their youth, were more easily enticed by Rousseau's pleasant invitation to return to a state of Nature, wherein all men should be happy, equal and free and brothers! They did not, until too late, perceive the serpent lurking among the flowers. It would be hard to say how many unfortunate souls were led step by step along a seemingly delightful path, until they found themselves deprived of spiritual vigour by the poisonous exhalations of those unhealthy swamps of literature. The attack of Voltaire was directed against Christianity; that of Rousseau against civil government—each aimed in his own way at the disintegration of the bases on which society rests.

IV. Suppression of the Jesuits

Europe at large was tainted with Philosophism, the spirit of unrest was abroad, and hidden forces were at work tending towards the destruction of law and order. Secret societies were extending their ramifications, and, with the object of securing their hold upon the nations, were already seeking to obtain control over the education of the young. Against these dangers, one of the chief bulwarks of the Church was the Society of Jesus, now increased to many thousands of members. The Jesuits were staunch opponents of error, not only by the eloquence of the pulpit and the pen, but by unflagging zeal in training young men of the upper classes to fight the battle of life as worthy soldiers in the ranks of the Church Militant. Their immense success left but little chance for the new Philosophy to win and hold the position it coveted. The realization of this idea by the enemy was the doom of the Society.

In Portugal a man was found ready and willing to begin the attack. The name of the Marquis of Pombal, the unscrupulous minister of Joseph I., will ever be associated with the odium of the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Having obtained ascendancy over his weak King, Pombal used his power to further his own schemes. Among his tyrannous acts there was none more unjust, nor more artfully contrived, than the expulsion of the Jesuits from Portugal, and the systematic blackening of their reputation in the eyes of Europe. The Bourbon princes, prejudiced against the Society, brought pressure to bear upon the Holy See; and the adversaries of the Jesuits knew no rest until the ruin of their powerful foe was accomplished. The Sovereign Pontiff was skilfully brought into the position of being obliged to choose between two evils: the suppression of the Society, or schism on the part of the Catholic rulers of Europe. Clement XIV. chose the former alternative, and reluctantly signed the Brief of suppression in 1773, protesting that he did so only for the sake of peace in the Church. The story is a long and sad one. It suffices to say that the Jesuits obeyed without a murmur, closing their colleges and resigning their churches; and, had it not been for the protection of the Protestant King, Frederic of Prussia, and the schismatic Empress, Catherine of Russia, they would have ceased to exist as an Order. These two sovereigns obtained from the Pope permission for the Jesuits to continue in their dominions as if the suppression had not taken place; thus giving striking testimony to the intrinsic value of the labours undertaken by the Society irrespective of Religion.

V. Conclusion

We cannot close our chapter on the pioneers of the French Revolution without casting a glance at Catholic Austria, whence was to come the unfortunate Marie Antoinette, whose marriage with Louis XVI. of France was among the causes of the catastrophe of 1789.

The Emperor Joseph II., infected by the prevailing philosophism of the eighteenth century, yet holding a middle course between that spirit and true Catholicity, directed his attention and energy towards religion. Frederic the Great, with grim humour, expressed these tendencies of Joseph in the sobriquet of "our brother the sacristan," The Austrian Emperor had, indeed, taken up the role of director of "bell, book, and candle," and nothing might be done in the churches which was not in accordance with the regulations of the imperial code.

However absurd this officious interference in ceremonial might seem to the outsider, it was nevertheless, a petty persecution irritating in the extreme to those who immediately suffered from it. Complaints were addressed to the Holy See, and so serious did the case become that, in 1782, Pope Pius VI. undertook the long and tedious journey to Vienna in the hope of bringing about some satisfactory arrangement. The Sovereign Pontiff met with an honourable reception from the Emperor, but nothing definite resulted from his visit. Joseph continued his injudicious meddling, with more or less satisfaction to himself, and discomfort to his subjects, until his death in 1799, when his system fell to the ground. Josephism in Austria holds much the same place in Church History as Gallicanism in France, though with less far-reaching consequences, and more dependence on Rome.

Outside our present scope lie the political movements which led up more directly to the Revolution. Such were the ruinous European wars of Louis XIV., and the resulting taxation of the lower classes, while the privileged nobility, flocking to Court, left the peasantry at the mercy of men hired to collect their hard-won earnings. The excitement caused by the success of the American colonies in their struggle against taxation by the mother-country, was intensified by the return to France of young nobles like Lafayette, who had placed their swords at the disposal of the colonists. The oppressed and overburdened multitude of Frenchmen felt that they too might win independence, and the liberty described by Rousseau. All was ready for the impending cataclysm.

The French Revolution, 1789–1799

I. Decline of the Monarchy

France looms large in the threatening atmosphere of the last decade of the eighteenth century. The imposing personality of Louis XIV., shining with the reflected rays of the genius, valour, and wealth which surrounded him in the earlier years of his reign, had raised her to the pinnacle of earthly grandeur. But the great monarch found in glory nought save vanity and vexation of spirit. His ruinous wars reduced his subjects to the verge of destitution, and long before his death his kingdom had shrunk back into a mere shadow of its former magnificence.

The guilty negligence and extravagance of his successors, the Regent Orleans and Louis XV., brought the country still nearer to financial ruin, at the same time that infidelity and corrupt morals sapped its strength from within. The impetus given to arts and letters during the seventeenth century continued, nevertheless, to urge the learned forward in the paths of philosophical speculation and independent criticism. The utterances of Frenchmen were still listened to with attention, though France was no longer recognised as holding a first place among the nations. But, however low might he her fall, her influence must ever remain, for good or for evil, a power to be reckoned with in the history of Europe and the Church.

The old order of things was about to pass away, and in the passing, was to shake the civilized world with convulsions hitherto unknown. The originating causes of this volcanic outburst lay deeply buried under the wreckage of the faith wrought among the Teutonic races during the sixteenth century. France was once again to serve as the instrument by which the elements of change were to be brought into immediate action. The secret societies, and chief among them Free-masonry, with its handmaid Philosophism, combined with infidel literature and the pernicious example of many in high places, had gained ground with alarming rapidity. No other result could have been expected from the working-out of the principles of the so-called Reformation which, by its repudiation of authority, loosened the bonds of society and disintegrated the solid foundations so carefully laid by the Church in the Ages of Faith.

"Let the Deluge come if it will, when we are gone," was the sentiment more than once expressed by Louis XV. and his boon companions, knowing as they did that they were helping to bring destruction on their country. The King had not long gone to his account when the pent-up waters burst their barriers, and in their fury, swept all before them. Yet for a moment before the catastrophe there was a lull of expectancy and almost of hope. The new sovereign, Louis XV was just twenty years of age; his wife, Marie Antoinette, was nineteen. "The Dauphin and Dauphiness," says Carlyle, "are King and Queen i Overpowered with many emotions, they two fall upon their knees together, and, with streaming tears exclaim: ` O God, guide us, protect us; we are too young to reign!' "Their very youth, however, with its bright hopes and promises, was for the time being their protection, and there was a general feeling that all might yet be well.

From his accession in 1774 to the outbreak of 1789, Louis worked courageously and conscientiously at the complicated problem which confronted him. He was not wholly lacking in capacity, but the present emergency would have taxed the powers of a much greater statesman. Marie Antoinette was thoughtless and inconsiderate, often giving occasion by her imprudence to accusations which, whether true or false, were most injurious to the royal cause. Hence, the dislike of the French for this "Austrian woman," as her enemies called her, was one of the most disastrous factors in the troubles leading to the downfall of the Monarchy.

The fruitless attempts of successive ministers of State to set things right, were followed by the desperate measure of calling a general parliament. If the momentous events to which this meeting of the States-General gave rise are matters of political history, there is, nevertheless, one aspect of them to which we must here give special attention. When the "National Assembly" had once been formed, its irreligious proceedings speedily inflicted irreparable injuries on the Church in France. This body, called in turn "Constituent "and "Legislative," need not trouble us by its various names; it was practically the "National Assembly "throughout its duration. Originating as it did in the independent action of the "Third Estate," or representatives of the people, its members were naturally opposed to the privileged, or untaxed, classes which included not only the nobility but the higher clergy. The abolition of privilege, by the extension of taxation to the rich, was the first object in view. It was just and reasonable that an effort should be made to relieve the poor from the excessive burdens to which they were subjected. Had a double reform of this kind been adopted, the exhausted treasury might have been filled, the credit of the nation saved, and France spared torrents of the blood of those whose only crime was religion or nobility. Want of wisdom to make opportune concessions brought the penalties of exile and death upon the King and his Ministers.

In the debates held for the purpose of obtaining redress of grievances, the more violent party gained the ascendency. Their attention was soon diverted from the question of taxation to the consideration of the immense wealth of the Church, and especially that of the Religious Orders. A proposal to confiscate such property was enthusiastically received by the Assembly as the surest means of paying off the nation's debts.

A preliminary measure was the abolition by law of the vows of religion. The next step was to suppress all monastic and conventual establishments and to turn their inmates adrift on the world. After this, the Church lands were handed over to the State, and paper money was adopted to represent their revenues. These "assignats," as the notes were called, not having the real value of gold or silver, caused distrust and a sense of insecurity throughout the country. Decrees were passed in rapid succession, each encroaching more than the previous one on the rights of clergy and nobility. Seized with terror, the aristocracy and many of the clergy began to provide for their individual safety by leaving the country. By the end of the month of April, 1790, the "Nation "had taken complete charge of the temporalities of the Church. It was not long before a deadly blow was struck at the spiritual power also.

II. Anarchy

The King was now treated as a simple citizen, and the National Assembly proceeded to remodel the constitution. To form a new basis for electoral representation, eighty-three departments took the place of the ancient provinces of France. The dioceses were rearranged so that there might be one Bishop in each department, his jurisdiction being made coterminous with the political division. This led to a further invasion of the spiritual domain. The authority of the Pope was ignored, and the appointment to ecclesiastical posts was declared to be henceforth in the power of the electoral bodies of the departments. Thus was formulated the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy," and it was enforced by an oath of fidelity to the Nation, without reference to any spiritual authority. The notification to the Pope of an appointment was, indeed, tolerated, but merely as a matter of courtesy, to be observed or neglected at the pleasure of the nominee. Such ecclesiastics as refused to take the oath were not to be allowed to exercise their functions.

The "Civil Constitution of the Clergy" aroused the indignant resistance of those against whom its measures were directed. The whole Episcopate, with four exceptions, absolutely refused to agree to the articles, preferring loss of property, or even of life, to separation from the Pope, the Centre of Unity. The great majority of the inferior clergy stood in firm phalanx round their bishops, allowing themselves to be dispossessed of their livings in favour of the constitutional priests who usurped their places. To make assurance doubly sure, the framers of the law called upon the three hundred clerical members of the Assembly to take the oath on the spot. Those who consented to do so were promoted to important positions, in the room of their non-juring brethren.

Finally, the King was requested to accept the new Constitution. The helplessness of his condition left Louis no choice, but he boldly refused to agree to the articles concerning the clergy, without the Pope's consent. He therefore placed his difficulty before Pius VI., who referred the decision to the Archbishops of Vienne and Bordeaux. After consideration, the two prelates came to the unfortunate conclusion that the King should be advised to accept the "Civil Constitution of the Clergy." With them, consequently, rests the responsibility of the line of action pursued by Louis. The false step was taken and led to the direst results. None were more conscious than the two Archbishops that their error was irretrievable, and, perhaps, inexcusable. They sincerely repented, and spent the rest of their days endeavouring to atone for their fault. The Archbishop of Vienne, in particular, is said to have died of grief.

As soon as Pius VI. became aware of the full purport of the articles, he issued a condemnation of the appointments already made by the secular power, and ordered all ecclesiastics who had taken the oath to retract within a given time, on pain of suspension. The Assembly retaliated by decreeing that non-jurant clergy should be transported beyond seas. The consequence was that the portion of the clergy who rejected the Pope's decision were in a state of open schism. The legitimate pastors were forced to live in concealment, while mercenary shepherds held their posts, and reduced their unhappy flocks to the most miserable condition.

The sad years which followed saw many martyrdoms of faithful priests, seized in the act of fulfilling secretly their sacred functions, while many of those who escaped with their lives passed through all the terrors of death. The wretched men who took the oath fared but ill between their infidel masters and a Catholic population who distrusted and despised them. Some joined the ranks of the revolutionists; others, more fortunate, recognised their errors and returned to the one fold.

A King in name only, Louis nevertheless held out against the godless measures of the self constituted government. Though he had formally accepted the Constitution, he could not give his consent to schismatical separation from Rome, nor sanction persecution of the Church. His firmness in refusing to participate in the crimes of his subjects led to his deposition and imprisonment. Marie Antoinette and their children, the Dauphin and the Princess Royal, with the King's sister, the saintly Madame Elizabeth, shared his fate. They were subjected to the most cruel treatment, and cut off from all their friends and supporters. At last, on January 21, 1793, after a mock trial, the King was brought to the guillotine, where many priests and nobles had preceded him. "Son of St. Louis, ascend to heaven," were the words by which the Abbe Edgeworth is said to have encouraged him to mount the scaffold. His unfortunate Queen passed through the same ordeal; as did also Madame Elizabeth, whose only offence was that she was sister to a King. The Princess Royal, afterwards Duchess of Angouleme, then in her sixteenth year, though rigorously imprisoned, was more leniently dealt with, and lived to see the restoration of royalty.

The Dauphin, who was only eight years old, became Louis XVII., a poor little uncrowned monarch, treated by his subjects with barbarous cruelty. He lingered on for about two years, until he was stifled by the noisomeness of his gloomy dungeon. The fate of this innocent child is a dark stain on the records of humanity, while it remains one of the unsolved problems of history.

III. A Triumphant Republic

The heroic deeds and enormous sacrifices of Catholic Brittany and La Vendee in defence of religion and royalty were all in vain. Prussia and Austria sent troops into the field to fight for the cause of the banished French aristocrats. But the Republicans were more than equal to any such resistance. With astonishing vigour they organised armies and placed them under the command of generals taken from the ranks. Men of genius came to the front, and proved to the world that old-fashioned methods of warfare must now give place to the new spirit, which found its ultimate impersonation in a young Corsican whose military studies were scarcely yet completed.

Still, Europe, as if paralysed, looked on without interfering. Not till the danger of revolution threatened her own shores did England rouse herself and prepare to fight. France offered assistance to any nation which should imitate her in throwing off the yoke of tyrants, as all sovereigns were called by the Republicans. In alarm at the possible results of such invitations, Pitt formed a coalition with the chief powers of Europe, and England entered upon a war against France, which was to last with various vicissitudes for more than twenty years.

In 1795 the task of governing France was taken up by a committee of five members, known as the Directory. Patriotism alone kept up French courage in the struggle against the monarchies of Europe, for the finances of the country were at the lowest ebb. Negotiations having been opened with the Italian revolutionists, an army under Napoleon Bonaparte was despatched to assist them in rebelling against their rulers. This young artillery officer had first distinguished himself in 1794, at the siege of Toulon, and early in 1796 had contracted a civil marriage, unblessed by the Church, with Josephine, widow of the Viscount de Beauharnais. Placed in command of the half-starved, ragged and unpaid troops, he provided a remedy for their distress by pointing out to them the fertile plains of Italy, and promising them the spoils of any city they could conquer. The soldiers took full advantage of the permission, and spread ruin and devastation far and wide. Revolution triumphed in the Peninsula, and the new hero, flushed with victory, returned to Paris, leaving Republican Italy to take care of itself under the protection of France.

For reasons best known to himself, Bonaparte had respected Rome and the States of the Church. The Directory, less far-sighted, allowed his successors in command to pour French troops into the Papal territory, and finally to call upon the Sovereign Pontiff to renounce his temporal possessions. Pius VI. refused to give up what was his only on trust, and in consequence was forced to leave his capital and to take whatever road his enemies chose. Their first idea was to relegate him to Sardinia, but fear of the English prevented this. He was dragged to Siena, and thence to Florence. The attitude of Austria rendering the rescue of the Holy Father likely if he remained in Italy, it was decided to transfer him to France. Imprisoned, first at Grenoble and then at Valence, the "Pilgrim Pope," worn out by weariness and afflictions, died in August, 1799.

The prospects of the Church might well seem hopeless. Rome was occupied by the French, Italy was Republican, the Pope had died in exile. Yet, however dark the heavens, there was light beyond the clouds, and it must shine forth again, even though it should come from the most unexpected quarter. England was chosen to herald the dawn of better days and to guide the way to Rome.

Nelson's victory at the Nile, and Sir Sidney Smith's gallant stand against Napoleon at Acre, gave Pitt the opportunity of forming a Second Coalition in 1799. France was for a moment kept at bay, and the Cardinals were able to meet in Conclave at Venice. After some delay the Bishop of Imola was elected Pope, and took the title of Pius VII. In July, 1800, the new Pontiff entered Rome, greeted by the plaudits of an enthusiastic people.

In the meantime Napoleon had returned to France, and by a clever stroke of policy had over-thrown the weak government of the Directory. He caused himself to be proclaimed First Consul, and set to work to secure his position. Once more he invaded Italy, and with more startling effect, by crossing the Alps, as Hannibal had done. The victory of Marengo opened a way for him to Rome, but it was not Napoleon's object to offer violence to the Sovereign Pontiff. His eagle-eyed ambition led him to uphold religion, and he knew that with the Holy See on his side he could accomplish great things.

BLESSED JULIE BILLIART

Negotiations were opened between the Pope and the First Consul with regard to the restoration of the Catholic religion in France. A "Concordat "was proposed, and, in spite of many obstacles, was carried through. The Pope's advisers feared that he was endangering the authority of the Church by too great leniency, while the French ministry were inclined to blame Napoleon for his concessions to the Holy See. The articles of the Concordat were at last signed by both parties; the civil Constitution of the clergy was abolished in France; the bells rang out once more from the long-silent belfries, and a general festival of thanksgiving was celebrated by the entire nation on April 18, 1802.

The embers of Faith hidden away during the Terror burst into new and exultant life. Lawful pastors took possession of the posts from which the constitutional clergy disappeared, and all liturgical ceremonies were resumed. It was like the removal of an interdict in the Middle Ages. The Religious Orders applied themselves to the duties of their apostolate, and new congregations arose to meet the more pressing needs of the times. The instruction of children had been sadly neglected, and labourers were urgently needed in this portion of the vineyard of the Lord. Then it was that Blessed Sophie Barat provided for the education of girls of the upper classes by the institution of the Ladies of the Sacred Heart.

Blessed Julie Billiart, a peasant herself, devoted her life to the instruction of the poor, and, migrating to Belgium, founded at Namur the Mother House of the Sisters of Notre Dame. Both these institutes were the direct and necessary remedy for one of the most threatening dangers following in the wake of the great Revolution.

BLESSED SOPHIE BARAT.

Napoleon had done marvellous things, and by the restoration of religion had earned the gratitude of every true Catholic. Had he but continued to serve the good cause he might have become one of the greatest sovereigns of history, and France might have escaped the conflict still, in our own day, raging between rival political parties. But he preferred to make the Church a stepping-stone to his ambition, and, dashing against the rock, he perished. So has it ever been, and so shall it be to the end.

The Dawn of Catholic Emancipation

I. The Relaxation of the Penal Laws

The events related in the foregoing chapters cover a space of time which worked hopeful changes in the condition of the Church in the British Isles. As long as Catholicity was, in the minds of Englishmen, identified with the Stuart cause, there was little chance of any amelioration in the penal code. But English Catholics, as a body, remained aloof from the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, thus testifying their loyalty to the reigning dynasty. Enthusiasm for the Stuart succession came to an end when Chatham wisely diverted the warlike ardour of the Scottish Highlanders to the service of the House of Hanover during the Seven Years' War.

One miserable class of men kept the magistrates well in mind of legal penalties which might otherwise have sunk into oblivion. These were the "informers," who played the part of spies for the sake of the hundred pounds offered by the statutes of William III. to anyone who should convict a priest of saying Mass or a teacher of being a Catholic. The terrible punishment of perpetual imprisonment brought upon his unhappy victim, did not deter the informer from seeking to earn the infamous reward which a successful prosecution would ensure. Priests and people were in a constant state of anxiety and alarm, resulting in extreme timidity of behaviour. Like the early Christians, they shunned the light, living, as Cardinal Newman tells us, "in corners, and alleys, and cellars, and the housetops, or in the recesses of the country; cut off from the populous world around them, and dimly seen, as if through a mist, or in twilight, as ghosts flitting to and fro, by the high Protestants, the lords of the earth."

This little flock, towards the close of the eighteenth century scarcely numbering sixty thousand souls, had for its shepherds four Vicars-Apostolic, Bishops indeed, but with little of the pomp and circumstance that we attach to the dignity. The name of Dr. Challoner, for instance, is familiar to us, not only from his "Memoirs of Missionary Priests," but also from his numerous controversial and devotional works; and particularly from the "Garden of the Soul," a collection of traditional English devotions not yet supplanted by those since introduced from abroad. The life of a Vicar-Apostolic was spent in constant heroic self-sacrifice, which might at any moment be exchanged for the dreary inactivity of perpetual imprisonment.

BISHOP CHALLONER.

With the accession of George III. in 1760, a transformation took place in the attitude of political parties. Hitherto the Whigs, as upholders of the "glorious Revolution," had been able to keep the reins of government in their own hands; but the young King was determined to reign alone. Gathering Tories round him, he drove the Whigs into opposition, and thus gave them an opportunity of urging reforms suited to the "liberal" views they were beginning to profess. The Catholics had true friends in the generous and broad-minded leaders of the Whig party, Burke and Fox.

Though an Irishman, Burke was a Protestant, born of a Catholic mother, who had stipulated with her husband that her daughters at least should be brought up in her own religion. The great statesman had therefore very strong Catholic sympathies, in addition to his patriotic love for his native land. On every occasion where his advice or his eloquence might avail, he was ready and willing to place them at the disposal of Catholics.

Charles James Fox was united to Burke by the ties of close friendship, only torn asunder later by their radical difference of temperament, revealed in disputes on the subject of the French Revolution. In Fox, and perhaps partly through Burke's influence, the Catholics gained another staunch supporter.

Worthless as he was, the eldest son of George III. deserves the gratitude of Catholics. If obstinate bigotry was one of the worst characteristics of the father, it had at this time no counterpart in the son, who was greatly influenced by Fox, and still more by his own Catholic wife, Mrs. Fitzherbert. To the Prince of Wales, later the Regent, we may attribute in large measure the generous hospitality accorded to the French refugees in the early days of the Revolution. There was also much friendly feeling between the Prince of Wales and Ireland, which groaned under a worse code of religious persecution than the small Catholic body in England.

It was, in fact, through Ireland that relief was to be expected, for with her weal or woe the fate of British Catholics was largely identified. When the American colonists responded by violent measures to England's attempt to tax them without allowing them representation, it became necessary for the Government to conciliate Ireland, lest she should also seek redress of grievances by active resistance. In 1771, accordingly, an Act for the reclaiming of profitless bogs, permitted any "Papist "to improve such lands for his own benefit. Again, in 1774, an Act was passed to enable "His Majesty's subjects of whatever persuasion to testify their allegiance to him," by taking an oath which, unlike all previous ones, contained nothing offensive to the Catholic conscience. By these concessions Ireland. was kept quiet, in the absence of the troops withdrawn to serve in America.

Once more, in 1778, when the situation was rendered still more alarming for Great Britain by the alliance of France with the revolted colonists, a real benefit was conferred on English and Irish Catholics. The obnoxious laws relating to the clerical and teaching professions were removed, to the great disadvantage and huge discontent of the informers, whose lucrative traffic thus suddenly collapsed. Relieved from the fear of spies, the faithful issued forth, as it were from the catacombs, and dared once more to breathe the free air of heaven. Public chapels were erected in which the Holy Sacrifice might be offered with safety, and new hopes were entertained of a bright future for Catholics. Even Protestants congratulated their friends of the ancient faith on the cheerful prospects opening out before them. A dark cloud was, nevertheless, lowering on the horizon, and threatening to cover with gloom the short-lived rays of light and comfort.

II. The Gordon Riots (1780)

The late concessions to Catholics had roused' the anger of the class of persons who had hitherto gained their subsistence by informing. A proposal made in 1779 to extend similar privileges to the Catholics of Scotland was the signal for widespread agitation. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was at the time a powerful leader of the lower classes, whom he had won over to his religious views. He was himself a most bitter opponent of Catholicity, and willingly fanned the flame of discontent. From his pen came a "Defence of the Protestant Association," a league which had been formed under the presidency of Lord George Gordon. The object of the association was to obtain a reversal of the Act of 1778, and thus to rivet the yoke of the penal laws once more upon the Catholic Church in England.

The attempt to relieve the Scottish Catholics of their burdens led to riots in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the "No Popery" agitation spread rapidly southwards. Gordon, as a member of Parliament, was able to rouse the London populace, and did not hesitate to place himself at their head. On June 2, 1780, an immense mob of wildly excited people marched under his leadership to the House of Commons to present a petition against "Popery." London soon became the scene of appalling riots. Catholic chapels were wrecked and burnt to the ground, not excepting even those of foreign ambassadors. The houses, not only of influential Catholics, but those of Protestants, like Lord Mansfield, who had shown sympathy with the Catholic cause, shared the same fate. In the general panic the grief and anxiety of the clergy may easily be imagined. The aged Bishop Challoner remained steadfastly at his post, sorrowful indeed, but full of confidence in Divine Providence, consoling and strengthening his afflicted flock. Though he escaped, almost miraculously, from the fury of the mob, the strain of that week of horror was too much for his already worn-out frame. He died peacefully in 1781, deeply regretted by all who had come within the circle of his benign and saintly influence.

In the midst of conflagration and tumult, when the city magistrates seemed paralysed and the soldiery waited for the word of command, King George alone had courage to meet the crisis, The riots had lasted from Friday to Tuesday, when, at length using his prerogative as Chief Magistrate, he issued a proclamation ordering all peaceable citizens to keep within doors. The troops were then commanded to fire on those who persisted in continuing the disturbance. The rioters were soon dispersed, and London returned to its wonted condition, heedless of the ruin of so many bright hopes and prospects. The work so joyfully undertaken after the Relief Bill of 1778 had been ruthlessly obliterated, and it was long before Catholics had courage to begin anew.

Indemnification was promised by the Government for all losses sustained. The Catholics had borne the trial with exemplary patience, schooled as they were in long-suffering endurance by the penal laws. Burke, in glowing words, testified to their forbearance. In a speech made at Bristol in the same year, he drew an alarming picture of what might have happened had the four or five thousand Irish labourers in the metropolis, his own countrymen, retaliated upon their assailants. They were known to be "men of strong arms, and quick feelings, and more remarkable. for a determined resolution than clear ideas or much foresight. But though provoked by everything that can stir the blood of men, their houses and chapels in flames, and with the most atrocious profanations of everything they hold sacred before their eyes, not a hand was moved to retaliate, or even to defend. Had a conflict once begun, the rage of their persecutors would have redoubled. Thus fury increasing by the reverberation of outrages, house being fired for house, and church for chapel, I am convinced that no power under heaven could have prevented a general conflagration; and at this day London would have been a tale." Burke goes on to say that the merit of this forbearance was due to the efforts of the clergy, and that on this occasion they deserved the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, instead of being "hunted into holes and corners," as they were.

III. Relief Bill of 1791

One lasting and disastrous consequence of the Gordon Riots was the means taken by a certain section of the Catholics to secure their position by making friends with the Government. A committee of laymen was formed who, without ecclesiastical sanction, proposed to erect a Hierarchy in England which should be practically independent of Rome. The late disturbance, they argued, had been caused not so much by dislike of Catholicity as by prejudice against "Popery." The new Catholic bishops, elected by the committee and its adherents, would be free from Papal interference in secular and political matters, and would rule a flock of loyal subjects of the British Crown, bearing the high-sounding but clearly illogical title of "Protesting Catholic Dissenters." The worst feature of these proceedings was that the Committee entered into negotiations with the Government under pretence of being the representatives of the entire body of English Catholics.

In the embarrassment of the Vicars-Apostolic at this high-handed and unorthodox meddling with their business, a champion was found, fearless and clear-headed, to defend the right. This was the celebrated Dr. Milner, whose services to the Church in England, during this and subsequent troubles, were invaluable. Without entering into the details of his arduous conflict with the Committee, it will suffice to say that he came out victorious, and that the concessions of 1791 were mainly the result of his courage and determination. By the Relief Bill thus obtained, Catholics were finally brought within the pale of the ordinary Civil law, and might prove their loyalty by taking the Irish oath of 1778, instead of a questionable formula proposed by the Committee.

A great advantage to the Catholic cause about this time was the arrival in England of large numbers of exiled French clergy and religious. Burke's "Reflections on the French Revolution "had prepared the educated classes of society to receive them with courteous hospitality, but the welcome given to them by people of all ranks was far beyond anything that could be expected. They were followed almost immediately by the inmates of the English colleges and convents driven from France and Belgium on the declaration of war between England and the French Republic. The designs of Providence seemed manifest. If the Revolution had occurred while the Penal Laws were still in force, the position would have been very different. God had so ordained that disabilities were removed, and in the resulting expansion of the Church the need of priests was supplied by the exiled clergy of France.

IV. The Irish Union, 1800

In 1782 the Irish obtained what we should now' call "Home Rule," but with the anomaly that a Catholic population was represented by a totally Protestant parliament. Of the great majority of the members it could truthfully be said, "Every man has his price," a historic phrase well illustrated later on; but there were among them noble-minded men who supported Grattan in his magnanimous efforts to obtain justice for his Catholic fellow-countrymen. In spite of the recent relief acts there were still many things to be desired.

The outbreak of the French Revolution and the offers of the Republicans to assist Ireland in shaking off the English yoke, alarmed Pitt. He had already perceived the necessity for a union of the parliaments when Ireland had supported the claim of the Prince of Wales to the Regency, in 1788, during the illness of George III. To quote from Lord Rosebery: "The next stage in Irish politics is the emancipation of the Roman Catholics in 1792 and 1793, when measures were passed, which, by admitting the peasantry to the parliamentary suffrage and to juries, and by relieving them from all property disabilities, exhausted, for the time at least, their interest in that question." About this time, also, a Bill was passed in the Irish Parliament, allowing Catholics to hold commissions in the army, up to the rank of colonel.

The Irish Rebellion of 1798 determined the Government to press on the contemplated union of the Parliaments. We may rejoice at the fact that no Catholic had a seat in the Dublin Houses, when we consider the shameless bribery by which the Union was effected. Still, the voice of the people counted for something, and they were won over by promises of complete emancipation. Pitt virtually pledged himself to obtain it for them, but he reckoned without the King. The very proposal of such a measure brought on an attack of the mental malady to which George was subject. He conscientiously feared that Pitt was urging him to break his coronation oath by extending favour to Catholics. On his recovery, he clinched the matter by sending the following message to the Minister: "Tell him that I count any man my personal enemy who should propose such a measure." Pitt, caught between two fires, obeyed the King by silence, though he showed the sincerity of his intentions by resigning office. Catholic Emancipation was delayed for twenty-eight years, and the Irish people, disappointed in their hopes, prepared to enter upon the struggle for the repeal of the Union, which was to continue until they obtained "Home Rule."

One clause of the Act of Union must not be forgotten. Mr. Lecky, whose opinion is above criticism, in contrasting the Scottish and Irish Unions, speaks thus strongly on the religious aspect of the Act of 1800: "The Irish never dreamed of demanding the establishment of the Church of the majority, which, in the case of Scotland, was solemnly guaranteed by the Union. They never dreamed of demanding even that religious equality which, sixty-eight years after the Union, was at last conceded. The Union Treaty, indeed, had a special clause guaranteeing the perpetuity of the established Church of the minority, and it was one of the favourite arguments of Castlereagh that it would stereotype the inequality. But there were other and less ambitious ends which the majority of the Irish people desired. Had the Catholic population been able to look back to the Union as the era of their complete political emancipation, of the settlement of the tithe question, and of the payment of the priests, the whole current of Irish feeling might have been changed. The propriety of uniting these measures with the Union was self-evident, and Pitt naturally perceived it; but the actual proceedings of his Government on the subject were such that it would have been better had the question of emancipation never been raised. The shameful story will be hereafter told. It is sufficient here to say that the Government intimated to the leading Catholics that they would be in favour of emancipation and of the other two measures I have mentioned if the Union were carried, and that they succeeded in this manner in obtaining some valuable ecclesiastical support, and in inducing the great body of the Catholics to remain passive during the struggle. But no sooner had the Union been accomplished than it appeared that the Ministers were not even agreed in desiring emancipation, that they had not taken a single step to overcome the known opposition of the King, and that they were prepared to make no considerable sacrifice in favour of the Catholics. Pitt resigned office, indeed, when the King refused to consent to the measure, but a month had not passed before he himself agreed to abandon it, and when he resumed power it was on the express understanding that he would oppose any attempt to carry emancipation."

For many years after the Union, Irish Catholics had to pay tithes and support an established Church for the sake of a mere handful of Protestants, while from their poverty they lovingly gave voluntary contributions to their own devoted clergy, and covered the face of the land with fitting dwelling-places for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Such were the mists and clouds, interspersed with fitful gleams and presages of light to come, which ushered in the dawn of the nineteenth century and of complete Catholic Emancipation. To our forefathers, just emerging from the night of the penal laws, it might well have seemed doubtful whether the day would break, or whether darkness would once more close in around them. It is for us to look back with thankful hearts and bless God for the wondrous ways by which He guides His Church through storm and darkness to the perfect day.

The Papacy and a New Empire

I. A Would-Be Charlemagne

Not content with his glory as a conqueror and his commanding position as First Consul, Napoleon aspired to revive the Holy Roman Empire in his own person and to pose as a second Charlemagne. More than this, he followed the example of sovereigns, such as had lately been seen in Louis XIV. of France and Joseph II. of Austria, by claiming not only political but also ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Once this pretension had taken definite shape the friendly relations with Rome necessarily became strained. For the present, however, the Pope must be kept in ignorance of the ultimate object in view.

Pius VII. was invited to Paris for the purpose of adding solemnity to the ceremony of Napoleon's coronation as Emperor in 1804. His arrival was the signal for a series of breaches of etiquette unpardonable as such towards any sovereign, but deliberately intended, in this instance, to convey the impression that the Emperor came first, the Pope second. To avoid a ceremonious reception of his august visitor, Napoleon, in hunting costume, met him, as it were by accident, at a distance from the city. Miss Allies, in her Life of Pope Pius VII., graphically describes the scene. She tells us how, on that wet November day, the white silk shoe of Pius had to encounter the mud of the road in order to walk across the measured distance which Napoleon had settled should be traversed before he would make any advances. The Pope and Emperor having met and embraced, the carriage was drawn up in such a way as to separate them. Two footmen opened the doors simultaneously; and though, by every law of courtesy and good breeding, the guest should have taken precedence of his host, by this arrangement both entered the carriage together, Napoleon taking the right side for himself and leaving the left for the Pope.

The magnificent ceremony in the cathedral of Notre Dame was marred by a singular and characteristic action of the imperial upstart. After the Pope had performed the anointing and when the moment had come for the coronation, Napoleon seized the diadem and placed it on his own head. He then proceeded to crown the Empress with his own hands, completely ignoring the fact that the coronation was the only ostensible reason for the Holy Father's presence and for the long journey he had undertaken. At the banquet which followed, the third place was assigned to the Pope, the Emperor and Empress preceding him. Yet Pius bore all with patient dignity, ever hoping that an opportunity would come for asserting his legitimate claim to the reverence due to his position as Supreme Pastor of the Church.

II. Under the Shadow of the Empire

There was soon no doubt that Napoleon had made up his mind to keep the Pope in Paris, and to use him as an instrument for promoting his own glory. But Pius VII. had not been so short sighted as to place the interests of the Church in the power of a tyrant. He took an early opportunity of informing the Emperor that before leaving Rome he had signed a legal form of abdication which was to come into force in the event of his being detained a prisoner. The gold would thus be turned to dross, and instead of a captive Pope there would remain but a poor monk, valueless even as a hostage. The Cardinals could proceed at once to elect a successor to Pius VII., and the struggle would begin anew.

Under these circumstances there was no advantage in keeping the Pope in France. Napoleon consented to his departure, and the Roman people had the joy of welcoming their Sovereign on May 16, 1805. It is interesting to note that the member of the Sacred College who by right of seniority received Pius VII. at the great door of St. Peter's, according to custom, was Henry Cardinal York, the last of the Stuarts.

The question of the temporal sovereignty was in reality the point at issue, but Napoleon could not refrain from interfering in spiritual matters. When it suited his purpose he neglected the terms of the Concordat, and he especially displeased the Holy Father by claiming administrative authority over the French Bishops, and by treating the clergy as paid officials. The permanent residence of the Pope in France might have enabled him to gain his ends by degrees, but the declaration of His Holiness with regard to his abdication obliged the Emperor to postpone his ambitious designs to a more favourable time.

Though Pius was allowed to return to Rome, the States of the Church continued to be occupied by French troops, and it was in vain that the Pope requested the Emperor to remove them. Other difficulties arose from time to time, such as the continental blockade of Napoleon, which the Holy Father declined to observe. The years 1806 and 1807 were marked by a constant struggle over petty details, giving endless annoyance, and carried on for the purpose of wearing out the patience of Pope and Cardinals.

Early in 1808 the French General, Miollis, was ordered to take possession of Rome. Pius did everything that was honourable and possible to keep peace, but the Emperor was resolved to quarrel. The crisis came in May, 1809, when the imperial decree was issued, whereby the States of the Church were united to the French Empire. "The form of the decree," according to J. H. Rose, "was as remarkable as its substance. With an effrontery only equaled by its historical falsity, it cited the example of ` Charlemagne, my august predecessor, Emperor of the French,' and, after exalting the Imperial dignity, it proceeded to lower the Popes to the position of Bishops of Rome." A bull of excommunication was the reply to this aggression, but, though it included in general the authors of the attack upon the Papal possessions, Napoleon was not mentioned by name. He was, nevertheless, enraged at the implied censure, and lost no time in retaliating. On July 6, 1809, Pius VII. was forcibly removed from Rome by French soldiers, and conveyed to Savona and thence to Fontainebleau, where he was detained as a prisoner of State, subject to many indignities from his keepers, while Napoleon continued his career of conquest.

III. Captivity of Pius VII

"It is impossible," says J. H. Rose, "briefly to describe the various conflicts between Pius VII. and Napoleon. Though now kept in captivity by Napoleon, the Pope refused to betray his trust, and the credit which Napoleon had won by his worldly-wise Concordat was now lost by the infraction of many of its clauses, and by his harsh treatment of a defenceless old man. It is true that Pius had excommunicated Napoleon, but that was for the crime of annexing the Papal States, and public opinion revolted at the spectacle of an all-powerful Emperor now consigning to captivity the man who in former years had done so much to consolidate his authority. After the disasters of the Russian campaign he sought to come to terms with the Pontiff; but even then the bargain struck at Fontainebleau was so hard that his prisoner, though unnerved by ill-health, retracted the unholy compromise. Whereupon Napoleon ordered that the Cardinals who advised this step should be seized and carried away from Fontainebleau. Few of Napoleon's actions were more hurtful than this series of petty persecutions; and among the influences which brought about his fall we may reckon the dignified resistance of the Pontiff, whose meekness threw up in sharp relief the pride and arrogance of his captor. The Papacy stooped, but only to conquer."

Joseph Fesch, Napoleon's maternal uncle, became Archbishop of Lyons, and was admitted to the Sacred College for his services in the restoration of religion in France at the time of the first Concordat. As Grand Almoner of the Emperor, he received from the Pope faculties to perform the marriage ceremony between Napoleon and Josephine on the eve of the coronation. These faculties included a dispensation from the decree of the Council of Trent, which requires the presence of the parish priest under pain of clandestinity—the very point which had invalidated the civil marriage of 1796. But Napoleon was, in 1804, contemplating an alliance with one of the reigning families of Europe, and had no intention of giving up his freedom. Though he went through the ceremony, he willfully rendered it null and void by protesting before witnesses that he withheld his consent. The Pope and Josephine and the world at large were, however, carefully kept in ignorance of the impediment until the proper moment. When, in i8ro, it became expedient to ally himself with Austria, it was easy to prove that no real marriage had ever taken place. Cardinal Fesch was employed by the Emperor in each of these cases, and again for his marriage with Marie Louise, so that no shadow of complicity could ever be imputed to Pius VII. The whole affair was treated by Napoleon as a domestic and political matter, in which the Church played but an insignificant part, and the mystery with which he surrounded it prevented his contemporaries from seeing it as clearly as we do in the light of recent investigation. The position of Fesch was exceedingly difficult, for, as chief of the "Red "Cardinals, he appeared to serve the cause of his nephew rather than that of the Church.

While negotiations with Austria were proceeding, the Pope was left solitary and a prisoner in the Palace of Fontainebleau. His faithful friends dared not approach him, and he had the grief of knowing that some of the very princes of the Church had taken part with his enemies against him. They were high in Napoleon's favour, and became known as the "Red "Cardinals, because those who were courageous enough to risk the consequences of open disapproval of the irregular proceedings with regard to the Austrian marriage were forbidden to wear their scarlet robes. If Fesch was the leader of the Emperor's party, Consalvi was undoubtedly the head of the "Black "Cardinals, and his unfaltering loyalty to the Pope brought him frequently under the displeasure of Napoleon.

In 1811 the Emperor convoked what he was pleased to call a "National Council of the Gallican Church." The Cardinals and Bishops assembled, but, to their honour be it said, there were many who preferred exile or imprisonment to desertion of the cause of the captive Pope. The Council was unsatisfactory, and broke up without effecting anything of moment. Napoleon's correspondence at this period betrays his anger at the resistance he encountered. "Does the Pope suppose," he wrote, "that his anathemas will cause the weapons to fall from the hands of my soldiers?" Yet at that very time he was preparing for the disastrous expedition to Russia, where the muskets fell from the benumbed fingers of his men, and where, weak with hunger and fatigue, they cast away their swords in order to fly more quickly from the inhospitable steppes. The failure of this great invasion was the beginning of a series of reverses which brought Napoleon to his ruin.

The following extract from Miss Allies summarizes the situation after the return from Moscow:

"A dark and heavy pall stretched from Fontainebleau over every member of the Catholic Church. Thirteen Cardinals, exiled to various provincial towns, under the supervision of the police, expiated their fidelity to Pius VII. Three Bishops shared the same fate. A number of priests were detained in Fenestrello and other State prisons on similar pretences; and a great many dioceses languished for want of pastors, because Napoleon willed the evil and would not will the remedy. In Italy things looked even worse. Rome, the centre of the Catholic world, was reduced to the rank of second city in the French Empire; the convents and monasteries were despoiled; a large proportion of Bishops and ecclesiastics had been carried off by violence to France, because they obeyed God rather than man."

The august prisoner of Fontainebleau was led to believe that he was alone in holding out against the proposals for a new Concordat placed before him early in 1813. Yet the very enumeration of the articles bears on the face of it the most flagrant usurpation of both temporal and spiritual jurisdiction. To quote from the same pen:

"Before their coronation the Popes would be required to swear that they would neither do nor command anything contrary to the Four Propositions of the Gallican Church. They would nominate only one-third of the Sacred College. The nomination of the remaining two-thirds would be the right and privilege of Catholic Sovereigns.... The Papal residence was to be fixed in Paris. . . The Emperor reserved to himself the exclusive nomination of the Bishops of the Roman States," etc.

POPE PIUS VII.

No wonder that, although weak and ill, the solitary prisoner rejected propositions so extravagant and so derogatory to his position as Head of the Universal Church. His resistance was so determined that an alteration was made in those articles to which he showed the greatest repugnance. Coercion of the most unscrupulous kind was made use of to obtain his consent, at least to the modified form of the treaty. In a moment of depression and extreme physical weakness the Pope signed the agreement. Advantage was at once taken of this false step; the Concordat was proclaimed to be the joint work of Pope and Emperor, and Pius was left to repent at leisure of what he himself considered as a betrayal of his Master's cause. But the faithful Cardinals, set free on the proclamation of the Concordat, hastened to rouse the Holy Father from the dejection into which he had fallen. A complete retractation was drawn up and sent to the Emperor. His only reply was to order that Fontainebleau should become once more a prison, and to continue carrying out to the letter the provisions of the recent Concordat.

IV. Triumph of the Papacy

While this cruel war was being waged upon the Head and Princes of the Church, Napoleon's enemies had been gaining ground. The Powers of Europe had combined against him, and the star of his destiny was fast declining. One or two brilliant victories on the side of France did not prevent the steady advance of the allied armies, and it became evident that total defeat was threatening the conqueror. Napoleon knew that he must either free the Pope or see him reinstated with honour by his enemies. He resolved, therefore, to prepare for the emergency by sending Pius back in the direction of Rome; but without revealing his intention of arrogating to himself, in the event of the allies entering Paris in triumph, the glory of restoring the Pope. The decree by which he at length proclaimed that the Sovereign Pontiff was at liberty, served no purpose, for it was immediately followed by his own abdication. It is a significant fact that the Palace of Fontainebleau, which had been the Pope's prison, should have witnessed the scene of the Emperor's deep humiliation in the presence of the representatives of the European Powers. Nay, the very table at which Napoleon sat was that at which Pius had signed his forced abdication of his temporal power. "` Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord."

"It was on May 24, 1814," writes Miss Allies, "that the Feast of Our Lady, Auxilium Christianorum, ushered in a glorious spring day, whose Italian sun lit up the cavalcade which passed through the streets of Rome. It was that of an old man with eyes dim from emotion blessing his people on their knees. A white-robed band of young men and girls met him at the Porta del Popolo, bearing palms which a gentle breeze swayed as the sun's rays touched them with its golden beams. ` Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord!' It was re-echoed from mouth to mouth, as the Romans looked again upon the Father, whom suffering had not broken because he trusted in God, and whose humility was proof against so great and glorious a triumph, because in the manifestation of popular feeling he saw before all things a homage rendered in his own person to the Lord whose Vicar he was. . . . At the Ponte del Milvio thirty young men of the noblest families of Rome esteemed it an honour to replace the horses of the Papal carriage, and thus to draw Pius VII. to the tomb of the great Apostles."

The Congress of Vienna, assembled for the purpose of reorganizing Europe, did not ignore the dominions of the Holy Father. He was represented in its deliberations by the great statesman, Cardinal Consalvi. The claims of the Pope were generously dealt with, and a more complete rehabilitation could not have been desired. With the exception of Avignon, in French territory, all the Papal States were restored. The return of Napoleon with the passing terror of the "Hundred Days " did not affect the Church, though the Pope was much distressed at the necessary rigour of the captivity of St. Helena. The treatment meted out to Napoleon was, nevertheless, much better than Pius himself had received at the hands of his gaolers. The unfortunate relatives of the once mighty Emperor found an asylum in Rome, and the Pope's solicitude for their welfare was unfailing. The death-bed of the lonely exile himself was soothed by the consolations of the religion of his childhood, provided for him by the meek and forgiving Pius whom he had so cruelly persecuted. It was perhaps in some sense an expiation that the number of years spent by Napoleon in St. Helena almost coincided with the number of those passed by Pius VII. at Fontainebleau.

On his return to Rome the Pope found the palace of the Quirinal fitted up with lavish magnificence. The son of Marie Louise had in his cradle been proclaimed King of Rome, and Napoleon had chosen the Quirinal for his abode when it suited him to visit the second city of his Empire. The only room left untouched was the simple cell from which Pius had been conducted as a prisoner to France. The joy of the Christian peoples at the restoration of the Sovereign Pontiff was expressed in gifts and congratulations from all sides. England vied with the Catholic countries in doing him honour. The Prince Regent made him a truly royal present in the form of a blank draft on the English Exchequer to be filled in at his pleasure,

With Rome as its centre, Europe seemed to recover from the strife and turmoil into which it had been plunged by the French Revolution. There were many things to engross the attention of the Holy Father. The Church in France was in disorder, and the Napoleonic code had affected religion in other lands. Education needed re-organization in harmony with Catholic ideals, and teaching Orders were ready to undertake the task. The great work of the Jesuits was once more placed in the hands of the scattered members of the Society, and the sons of St. Ignatius were bidden by the voice of Pius VII. to come forth from the annihilation to which obedience to Clement XIV. had reduced them. Each nation had its claims on the Sovereign Pontiff, and with the assistance of his eminent Secretary of State, Consalvi, and his other faithful Cardinals, Pius devoted himself to the arduous task of reconstruction. It was truly a resurrection of the Papacy after its terrible struggle with the new Empire of the self-styled "second Charlemagne."

Catholic Emancipation

I. Immediate Preparation

In the year 1793, when the French Revolution was at its height, the English College at Douai was broken up and its inmates were dispersed, that they might escape the fury of the Republicans. One of the students, a youth of some eighteen years of age, a tall, handsome lad with bright, intelligent eyes and dark, abundant hair, might be seen wearing the tri-coloured cockade until he reached in safety the ship which was to convey him back to Ireland. No sooner was he out of danger than he Last the revolutionary emblem into the sea, and registered a vow that he would be for ever the champion of law and order. So deep was the impression made upon young Daniel O'Connell by the scenes of anarchy and bloodshed which he had witnessed in France, that however great his power, he never infringed, either in his own person or by the instrumentality of anyone else, the sacred limits of constitutional and legal action.

Deplorable as it was from the Irish point of view, the Union of 1800 was, nevertheless, the best safeguard of the position of English Catholics. Instead of isolating the representatives of several millions of Catholics and leaving them to fight their own battles at home, the Union brought Irish members into the English House of Commons, and paved the way towards making Catholic claims important and powerful. But there was still the grave drawback that no believer in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and consequently no Catholic, could take the oath admitting him to a seat in the House of Commons. The problem was, how to remove this disability. The form of the test must be changed, but who was the champion destined to effect the removal of the obnoxious expressions? Divine Providence was gradually leading the way to this desirable end, and O'Connell was being quietly prepared for the task.

Meantime, by the good offices of friendly Protestant members, it was possible to keep the question of emancipation before Parliament. No opportunity of doing so was neglected, and Dr. Milner in particular obtained much by this means. He was the chosen organ of the Catholic body, first in England, and then as the representative of the Irish Bishops. But more than once he experienced the difficulty of making representations by the mouths of men who could not grasp the principles lying at the root of the Catholic position.

The affair of the "veto" was an extremely difficult problem, and took many years to solve. It consisted in a proposal that the King should have a negative power in the appointment of Bishops in Ireland. Irish opinion was absolutely opposed to such a concession, but in England it was very generally thought that if emancipation could only be obtained at this price, the grant of the "veto "might not be too much to pay for it. Some vague idea of the latter phase of opinion had impressed Mr. Ponsonby, a leading member of the House of Commons, well-intentioned towards Catholics. He made, in consequence, an astounding speech in Parliament, in which he professed to be authorized by Dr. Milner to declare "that the Catholic clergy were willing, in the event of the measure before the House being acceded to, that the appointment of every Catholic Bishop in Ireland should in future finally rest in the King; that the Catholic Bishops' had no objection to make the King the head of their Church, and that a Bishop appointed by the Pope, if disapproved by His Majesty, should not be allowed to take upon himself his spiritual functions." So much for the good offices of Protestant friends. It was indeed time that Catholics should be allowed to speak for themselves.

The question of Catholic emancipation "divided, weakened, or destroyed every Government which held office from the time of the Union until it was finally settled in 1829", Yet each Ministry, before entering office, tacitly agreed not to bring forward the question. When the Napoleonic wars were over there was some hope that the bigoted policy of George III. would be abandoned, but the opportunity slipped by, and all went on as before. The accession of George IV. in 1820 led to renewed hope, followed by more bitter disappointment. The Prince Regent, while under Whig influence, had shown friendly feeling towards Catholics, but Fox and Burke were now gone, and as King he reverted to the policy of his father, and refused all concessions. His brother Frederic, Duke of York, was still more prejudiced, and, as heir-presumptive to the throne, was an alarming factor in the outlook.

There were, nevertheless, powerful Protestant supporters of the Catholic claims. Castlereagh, in spite of his ignoble share in the Union, never deserted the cause for which the Irish were now striving with all their might. The great oratorical gifts of Canning were never used to better effect than in pleading for the repeal of the iniquitous penal laws. The trend of public opinion was towards reform of all kinds. After the Tory reaction against the French Revolution, the tide of Whig influence set steadily in, sweeping abuses away on every side. The same feeling which led to the suppression of the slave trade and the improvement of the criminal code was working out the designs of God for the liberty of His Church. The appointed instrument directly chosen for the accomplishment of the great work was being fashioned and prepared with consummate skill.

A year after his return from France, O'Connell entered at Lincoln's Inn, and, after a successful course of legal study, was called to the Irish Bar. The young "Counsellor" soon became immensely popular, and, recognising his capacity as a leader of men, began to devote his attention to the cause of emancipation. He was no upholder of mere passive resistance. His watchword in politics was "Agitate," and, the agitation once begun, he never allowed it to subside until the point was gained. The idea of the "veto "was to him detestable; nothing would be accepted by Catholics but absolute and unqualified emancipation, and this he was determined to obtain. For many years it seemed as if the fight would be in vain, but O'Connell's talent for organization came to the rescue. In 1823, when prospects were dark indeed, the famous Catholic Association was begun, and, in order to devote his time entirely to it, the "Agitator "gave up his practice at the Bar. He gained over the clergy, and with them came the whole population of Ireland. The entire island was banded together in this magnificent organization, and O'Connell led his followers whither he would. Fortunate it was that, faithful to his early resolve, he insisted on constitutional agitation only, for, had he but given the word, a formidable rebellion might have broken out. So great was the alarm of the British Government that a Bill was brought in for the suppression of the Association. O'Connell did not wait for the passing of the Bill; he gave the sign, and the mighty fabric dissolved into thin air. This occurred in 1825, but though the Catholic Association, as such, was no more, its spirit lived on, and its organization remained.

II. Struggle and Victory

One of the great difficulties in the way of Catholic agitation was, as we know, the exclusion from Parliament of all who would not consent to take the religious test oath. O'Connell resolved to force an entrance. In 1828 he stood as candidate for the county of Clare, and was returned, not only without opposition, but with the enthusiasm of a triumph.

The Government stood aghast. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wrote to Sir Robert Peel: "Such is the extraordinary power of the Association, or, rather, of the agitators (of whom there are many of high ability, of ardent mind, of great daring), that I am quite certain they could lead on the people to open rebellion at a moment's notice;" and the Chief Secretary expressed his fear that the exclusion of O'Connell from the House of Commons would be the signal for an armed rising. Yet O'Connell refrained from using his mighty weapon. He waited until such terms should be offered as would enable him to obtain, if possible, a bloodless victory. The negotiations between the King and his Ministers were long and tedious, but the dread of civil war brought them at length to a close.

DANIEL O'CONNELL.

The Catholic Emancipation Act received the royal signature on April 13, 1829. Catholics could at last enter Parliament, the oath of abjuration being abolished and that of supremacy modified, while the penal code was completely swept away. Yet O'Connell was refused admittance to the House, and was forced to return to Clare to be re elected, because, forsooth, he had been returned before the Act was passed. The rebuff offended the Irish, but only served to cover the "Liberator" with greater glory. His election was confirmed by a grateful people, who carried their hero in triumph from place to place. In 1830, at the age of fifty-five, he took his well-earned seat in the House of Commons.

Justin McCarthy tells us that "as the orator of a popular assembly, as the orator of a monster meeting, he (O'Connell) probably never had an equal in these countries. He had many of the physical endowments that are especially favourable to success in such a sphere. He had a herculean frame, a stately presence, a face capable of expressing easily and effectively the most rapid alternations of mood, and a voice which all hearers admit to have been almost unrivalled for strength and sweetness. Its power, its pathos, its passion, its music, have been described in words of positive rapture by men who detested O'Connell. . . . Most persons supposed that the style of speaking he had formed . . . must cause his failure when he came to appeal to the unsympathetic and fastidious House of Commons. But it is certain that O'Connell became one of the most successful Parliamentary orators of his time."

The great Dr. Milner did not live to see the emancipation which he had worked so strenuously to obtain. His death occurred on April 19, 1826. But we owe him gratitude for the benefits we now enjoy, and future generations must not forget through what difficulties he cleared a way for the resurrection of the Catholic Church in England. He was truly one of those who suffer persecution for justice' sake, not from the wicked only, but even from the foolish or mistaken good. Misrepresented at Rome, and reproved by the Holy Father on grounds of misunderstanding; attacked by O'Connell as a supporter of the "veto "which of all things the Bishop most hated and dreaded; left to fight out his battle almost alone, Milner had passed through a veritable martyrdom. He deserves the gratitude of every English Catholic, and his memory should be kept green in the Church in this country which owes to him so deep a debt.

In a chapter dealing so largely with O'Connell, a short account of the great temperance movement to which he gave generous support may not be out of place. Father Theobald Mathew was a holy Capuchin Friar, who advocated total abstinence from intoxicating liquors as the only means of remedying the moral degradation which had become appalling in large towns. Multitudes flocked to hear his preaching, and to "take the pledge" at his hands, and when the great "Liberator" had given the example in Dublin, there were no limits to the enthusiasm of the people. The movement spread all over Ireland, and even to most of the great cities of England. The Irish famine of 1846 proved a drawback to the efforts of Father Mathew and his disciples, but an impetus had been given to the cause of temperance. Henceforth at any mission a request to "take the pledge" was regarded as a matter of course

Cardinal Wiseman tells us that it was his pleasing duty to communicate to Pope Pius VIII., who had just succeeded to the Papal throne, the glad tidings of Catholic emancipation. "It need hardly be remarked," he adds, "that such a message was one of unbounded joy, and might well have been communicated to the Head of the Church in the words by which the arrival of Paschal Time is announced to him every year: Pater Sancte, annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. To him, who was not only most intelligent, but alive to all that passed throughout Christendom, the full meaning of the measure was of course apparent. But generally it was not so." The Cardinal goes on to relate how little the Roman people understood or appreciated the demonstrations of Englishmen on the occasion. Even the students of the English College in Rome failed to grasp its complete significance. "We had left our country when young, and hardly conscious of the wrongs which galled our elders; we should return to it in possession of our rights, and thus have hardly experienced more sense of injury than they who have been born since that happy era."

So it is with the present generation. Benefits have been bestowed upon them which they can scarcely appreciate, because they know not what it was to have lived under the pressure of the penal laws. But to our forefathers, who had weathered the storm, the calm return to port was sweet and welcome. Catholics were free to issue from their obscurity, and to take honourable places among their fellow-countrymen in the full realization of the fact that persecution was now indeed a thing of the past.

The Catholic Revival in France

I. Return of the Ancien Regime

The restoration of the Bourbons in the person of Louis XVIII. was an effort made by the French royalists to bring back the state of things which had existed before the Revolution. Nothing could have been more delusive. The infatuated supporters of the monarchy fondly imagined that it was possible to bridge over the mighty chasm wrought by the furious torrent of anarchy, and their folly became evident to themselves only when they were once more swept off their feet and cast adrift among its raging billows. For a moment, indeed, the destructive forces at work had been arrested by the strong hand of Napoleon, when he restored order and religion by the Concordat of 1801. Yet, however great his strength, he had failed to grasp the truth that no temporal power is secure unless its foundation rests upon the firm rock of the one unchangeable Church. That rock was meant to be a refuge and a stronghold, never a mere stepping-stone for ambition. Louis XVIII., Charles X., and Louis-Philippe were successively the victims of revolutionary rage; a Pius, and a Leo, and a Gregory could fear no downfall, for it is written that "the gates of hell shall not prevail."

The Church is progressive, and, while monarchs go and come, she sits serene upon her throne, and adapts her attitude to the ever-changing times. Never in haste, she may be accused of lagging behind the busy world, but she can well afford to wait, for the centuries are all her own. Her work is to save souls from the wreck and chaos around her. She has not forgotten that the fisherman's craft is a school of patience. She knows that she will be allowed to fill her nets, and that, when they are filled, time shall be no more. Empires and kingdoms shall pass away, but her kingdom must endure, for it is Christ's, and therefore "not of this world."

If we bear in mind Napoleon's tyrannical interference in ecclesiastical nominations, we shall not be surprised that the clergy in France were not in the most perfect hierarchical condition. Not a few dignitaries, as in the case of the "Red" Cardinals, had attained their position by pandering to the Emperor's wishes, while, on the contrary, many a noble and saintly ecclesiastic had been relegated to an obscure post that he might not obtrude his presence on the despot. The majority of the clergy were either Bonapartist or Legitimist. In either case they were not in sympathy with the democratic principles of revolutionized France.

The spirit of Liberalism was in the air, and had taken possession of the younger generation. There was no resisting it; surrender to it was, in the end, inevitable. The first impetus towards meeting the new movement could not, for obvious reasons, come from a clergy pledged to old traditions or to imperialist policy. Yet the Church, as is her wont, must be all to all to gain all to Christ. With an alacrity perhaps unparalleled in history, a noble body of laymen came to her assistance. De Maistre and Chateaubriand, Bonald and Montalembert, led the way, and were followed by Ozanam and Veuillot, and many another eager in the cause of truth and righteousness, all of them overstepping at times the bounds of prudence, but ever devoted and loyal to the great mistress and mother of the nations. The clergy soon took heart, and worked with a will at the regeneration of France.

II. Pioneers of the Revival

The most ardent defender of religious liberty was first in the field. Joseph de Maistre, elder brother of the well-known witty and amiable author of a Voyage autour de Ma Chambre, adopted the doctrine of Ultramontanism in its widest acceptation. Ultramontanism was a reaction against Gallicanism in all its forms, including Josephism and the later opposition to Papal Infallibility as defined by the Vatican Council. It was the assertion of the principle of unity in government as opposed to the disruptive tendencies of anarchy. Papal and royal sovereignty—nay, absolutism—were to extreme Ultramontanists the only restraints to be depended upon in the universal struggle for liberty threatening to destroy the modern world. De Maistre's incisive logic, his brilliant rhetoric, his sound philosophy and deep learning, were all devoted to the task of convincing his readers that the Catholic Church alone could teach true religion, and that, as a natural consequence, the Pope was the infallible exponent of the law of God to the nations, and to their sovereigns, whose right to rule came also from God. This recognition of the Divine origin of all authority could not fail to lead to true liberty, while the rejection of it involved the tyranny of the irresponsible and many-headed multitude. So thought De Maistre, and the treatise, "Du Pape," with the unfinished "Soirees de St. Petersbourg," are the exponents of his views on the subject.

CHATEAUBRIAND.

A less serious writer, but one who, for that very reason, was more widely read, was Chateaubriand. His object was to show that from an aesthetic and poetical standpoint the Catholic Church had absolute claims upon the human race, and that outside of her pale there was no hope of true freedom or of substantial progress. The novel Atala  struck the keynote of this pleasing philosophy, and was afterwards incorporated in the more serious and voluminous work, the "Genie du Christianisme." The writings of Chateaubriand were in harmony with the literary movement of romanticism, and obtained a wide circulation even outside Catholic society. They roused enthusiasm for the unfading beauty of the one true Church among a class of readers who were anything but religious, and this first impulse often led to deeper questionings and to true conversions. Here, again, the note of liberty was touched, for romanticism was a revolt against the restraint of classical forms in literature.

Bonald was another ardent supporter of freedom based upon papal and monarchical principles. He was less famous than his friend, De Maistre, though his philosophy was more profound, and, perhaps, through its influence on the Abbe de Lamennais, made a deeper mark. Under the name of "Traditionalism," it affected the teachings of theologians far on into the nineteenth century, and was not always a safe guide, especially in the case of the unfortunate Abbe de Lamennais.

III. L'Avenir and its Editors

The mention of this name leads us from the lay to the clerical, or partly clerical, movement towards liberalism. The Abbe de Lamennais is a deplorable example of those who, beginning with good intentions, end by wishing to advance more quickly than the Church, and in consequence find themselves entangled in the maze of heterodoxy. They lose their way, not because they have separated themselves from their guide, but because they are impatient of her apparent inertia, forgetting that she must order her march to suit the slow and the feeble as well as the active and vigorous of her flock.

Lamennais was advanced in life when he took up arms in favour of Christian liberty. His previous career had been chequered by seasons of doubt and even loss of faith, a fact which may go far to explain his subsequent errors. With all the vehemence of his impulsive nature, he adopted the principles of Joseph de Maistre and the Vicomte de Bonald, with the difference, however, that whereas they advocated a papal and monarchical State, he put forward the new theory of the Papacy ruling a democratic world. Fired with ardour for the propagation of his views, he began a periodical which, under the name of L'Avenir, soon made him famous, if not, indeed, notorious. His first colleague was a young priest who was destined to be one of the greatest powers in the Catholic Revival.

Lacordaire did not become a Dominican till 1839, but he was ordained as a secular priest in 1827. The genius of Lamennais was, as it were, the lodestone which led Lacordaire to devote his brilliant literary gifts to the new liberal Catholic journal. There was much poetry mingled with the philosophy of the young Abbe, and this was probably the secret of his future oratorical eminence. Lamennais and he, notwithstanding the disparity of their years, contracted a deep and sincere friendship, in which a third, in the person of Montalembert, soon took part.

Montalembert, the son of a French exile residing in England, was already prepared by the vicissitudes of his early life for the acceptation of liberal doctrines. He had pondered long over the question of the reconciliation of faith with freedom—how to serve God and yet be free—and now it seemed to him that he had reached the goal of his aspirations. He joined the staff of L'Avenir  and worked manfully shoulder to shoulder with his newfound friends. He and Lacordaire have been called with justice the two lieutenants of the veteran Larnennais.

Serious misgivings were felt from the first with regard to the excessively Ultramontane journal, whose advanced doctrines were so well expressed in its title, L'Avenir. The articles it contained waxed more and more "incandescent," until they became so evidently subversive of all authority save that of the sovereign people, that further publication was prohibited. Lacordaire and Montalembert, still under the spell, accompanied their beloved master to Rome, to lay their case before the Pope. Gregory XVI. did not personally interfere, but the opinions of L'Avenir  were authoritatively declared to be untenable. From that moment dated the miserable lapse of the gifted defender of Papal prerogative into the abyss of infidelity. Cardinal Wiseman describes how, during this journey to Rome, Lamennais told one of his companions that he felt a demon in his heart which would one day drag him to perdition—the demon of pride and disappointed ambition. Yet up to this point he had been guilty of no outward disloyalty. It was not want of orthodoxy, but haughty refusal to abide by Rome's temporary decision, that ruined him. But however deeply we may lament his fall, there is some satisfaction in the thought that he fell alone. Indeed, one of the most admirable points in his character was his delicate care to preserve his enthusiastic young disciples from following him too far.

Lacordaire, in alarm at the precipice yawning before him, turned and fled from his erring master, seeking refuge first in solitude and then in the religious life. Montalembert, with all the confidence of youth, clung to his friendship with Lamennais, sure of bringing him back to reason. He could not believe that so great a genius should continue obstinate in error. He implored Lamennais at least to remain silent.

"The ideas we have defended," he argued, "must be either good or bad, true or false, heavenly or earthly. If they are earthly and false, we ought to thank God for preventing us from defending them any longer. If they are true and heavenly, what more certain guarantee of their triumph can we have than the sanction given to them by the practice of humility and Christian resignation?"

So spoke the zealous young layman to the erring priest, but all in vain. We may well believe that these words of Montalembert were chronicled in his tears under the date March 1, 1854:

"I have just learnt the terrible end of the Abbe de Lamennais, who died the day before yesterday in final impenitence, after twenty years of infidelity to the faith he once so eloquently glorified. He was my first master! He decided the course of my life! What a lesson! What an example!"

IV. A New Phase

The twenty years spent by Lamennais in infidelity had seen good work done by both his former disciples. Their return to public life, after the discouragement and distress consequent on his desertion, was due to the stimulating influence of a very remarkable woman. Madame Swetchine was a Russian convert to Catholicism, who in her young days had been a fervent admirer of the philosophy of Joseph de Maistre. Having settled in Paris, she presided over a "salon "frequented by men of the highest intellect. Montalembert, smarting under the attacks made against him on account of his connection with L'Avenir, and Lacordaire, similarly affected by his first great failure, were roused to further exertions by the eloquent words in which Madame Swetchine pointed out to them that their talents should be employed in the service of religion.

The admission of Montalembert into the French House of Peers, on the death of his father, gave him the opportunity of making a noble defence of Catholic education, endangered by the attacks made against it during the reign of Louis Philippe. He accepted the Revolution of 1848 and continued to fight for the Church until Napoleon III. came to the throne; but the second Empire, being absolutely contrary to his liberal principles, found in him one of its most unflinching opponents. The year 1870, which saw its fall, saw also the death of Montalembert.

A later friend and colleague of Montalembert was the brilliant lecturer on history who founded the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Frederic Ozanam ranks high on the list of zealous laymen who devoted "the chivalrous swords of their militant faith "to the regeneration of their country. The world-wide organization for the relief of the poor, of which he was the originator, is a living testimony to his genius and to the indomitable ardour with which he promoted good works on the most approved lines of truly Christian liberalism.

Born in the same year as Ozanam, but fortunately destined to a much longer life, Louis Veuillot "brought remarkable wit and a faculty of slashing criticism, not often equaled, to the service of his party." Veuillot was a journalist whose youth had been passed in anti-Catholic surroundings, but, once converted, he became the most unswerving of Ultramontanists. As editor of the Catholic journal L'Univers, he did splendid work, though too frequently he inclined to violent invective, and more than once found his publication suppressed by the Government and himself in danger of fines and imprisonment.

Such were the men whom God raised up to fight the battles of His Church. They were men of goodwill, though not infallible, nor indeed impeccable, but, taking them all in all, the Church of France may well be proud of them. They were the champions of truth engaged in the great war against error, Ranged against them were men, possibly of equal power and genius, of whom we have not space, even if it were advisable, to speak. But, fighting with them and for them, were many, both clergy and laity, who owned them for their leaders, and stood by them in serried phalanx to the end. They were the initiators of what has been called the Neo-Ultramontane Movement, with the broader aspects of which we have yet to deal. In considering the European and especially the Roman phase of the question, we shall meet again with Montalembert and Lacordaire and Louis Veuillot, and shall, after this brief acquaintance, recognise and appreciate their position and opinions.

The Catholic Revival in Germany and England

I. The German Revival

"What is the German Fatherland?" is the first line of a popular German song, which goes on to reply that the Fatherland exists wherever German hearts beat true to the sound of the German tongue. The Protestant Reformation and the Classical Renaissance had held this realm of German speech in strict bondage for nearly three centuries. Then, after the Napoleonic wars, a change came. With Milton one might have said, "Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks." The political resurrection of Germany was accompanied, if not preceded, by an intellectual revival in arts, letters, and religion. A portion of the stream sought once more its ancient channel and found Catholicism. The current that remained Protestant flowed on to what Heine considers its only possible outlet—the free thought which ends in negation of all religious truth.

The Romantic Revival in literature, by casting off the formality of classicism and returning to Nature, led many minds to the contemplation of God; and, by directing attention to the legendary lore of the Middle Ages, created an interest in the medieval Church. Men of poetical temperament, such as Count Stolberg, the brothers Augustus and Frederic Schlegel, "Novalis," and Tieck, began to sympathize with Catholicism, and some of them ended by seeking refuge within the pale. They drew upon themselves the attacks of the school of negation, but they continued their course in spite of opposition. Mohler, in his "Symbolism," proved the superiority of Catholicism over Protestantism; Gorres and many others devoted their literary talents to the defence of religion; while Overbeck and Cornelius founded a new school of Christian art, destined to supersede to some extent the pagan ideas which had so long prevailed, and possibly to lead the way to the English "pre-Raphaelite" Movement. The French and German revivals were contemporaneous, and though the world at large may have been more dazzled by the brilliancy of the great Frenchmen, there was a depth and earnestness in the Germans which could not easily be surpassed.

Romanticism, as manifested in German literature, attracted the attention of English men of letters, and was made known in this country directly by Coleridge, and indirectly, through Coleridge's influence, by Wordsworth. It drew both these poets closer to the true faith, and even to love and devotion to Our Lady, as she is addressed in one of Wordsworth's most beautiful sonnets.

"Woman, above all women glorified,

Our tainted nature's solitary boast,"

Again, the old German legends contained a mysterious fascination for many who owed them a lesser debt than did Scott. Their study led him to attempt a similar rescue of the Border minstrelsy, and thus brought him into contact with pre-Reformation thought and feeling. All readers of Scott's work, whether in prose or verse, will readily acknowledge that the Catholic Church, however he may have misunderstood her at times, was the mainspring of his romantic enthusiasm.

II. The English Revival

It would be a mistake to think that the Oxford Movement was the chief factor in the wonderful expansion and rejuvenation of the Catholic Church in England to which Cardinal Newman has given the suggestive title of "The Second Spring." Bishop Casartelli opens out a wider horizon when he says that it was but one chapter, however glorious a one, of a complete history. "The influence of the Oxford Movement was an influence external to the Catholic Church, a movement primarily in the bosom of the Anglican Establishment, working therein with an effect at once elevating and disintegrating, and, as its final result, bringing over to the Catholic Church much of what was noblest and best of Anglican intellect and heart. But I wish to show that the modern revival of Catholicity has not been the exclusive outcome of this mighty influence from outside. There are other chapters in the history scarcely, if at all, less worthy of record. To take an example which will occur to every mind, a very important share in the resuscitation of Catholic life and practice, and in the multiplication of both clergy and laity, must be attributed to the great stream of immigration from Catholic Ireland consequent upon the famine and disease which in 1846, 1847, and following years, drove so many poor, yet staunch, Catholics to these shores and spread them all over the country."

The learned Bishop goes on to explain that the object of his paper, which he entitles, "A Forgotten Chapter of the Second Spring," is to recall the fact that a veritable "Italian Mission "was at that time established within the English Catholic body. He refers to the coming in 1835 of the Fathers of the Institute of Charity, with Dr. Gentili at their head. Their labours were blessed with immense success both among Catholics and among all who listened to their zealous preaching. An Oxford graduate, one of Newman's favourite disciples, afterwards Father William Lockhart, was received into the Church by Dr. Gentili, "who had the great privilege of culling this first ripe fruit of the Second Spring."

Four novelties in religious practice were introduced by the Italians. They are no novelties to us to-day, but to our fathers they were strange indeed. We have still—(1) the preaching of popular missions; (2) the ceremony of the renewal of baptismal vows; (3) the Quarant' Ore, or Forty Hours: (4) the devotions of the month of Mary. "Looking back," continues Bishop Casartelli, "it appears to us as if religious life must have been almost torpid without these now familiar works of devotion and charity." The present costume of the secular clergy was also adopted about this time, for brown had, so far, been the nearest approach to severity of colour, and the Roman collar was introduced from Italy. The title "Father," instead of "Mr "and "Sir," was certainly not of earlier date, for there are venerable priests still living who, in their younger days, were never spoken of or addressed as "Father."

Other religious Orders, both of men and women, sprang up all over the country: Passionists, like Father Dominic and Father Ignatius Spencer, inspired with the zeal of their founder, St. Paul of the Cross, for the conversion of England; Redemptorists, ready to undertake the great work of giving public missions; nuns of various congregations from Ireland, France, and Belgium, devoting themselves to the education of girls—all vying with each other in the apostolic labours from which religious had been so long debarred. England was to some degree familiarized with monastic life by the refugee monks and nuns whom she had so hospitably received during the French Revolution; but the days were still far off when the religious habit could be worn in public; and the Catholic chapels were so unsafe that none dared burn a lamp before the spot where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved.

Dr. Gentili died in Dublin in 1848, during the overwhelming fatigues of a great mission, and was buried in Glasnevin Cemetery. "So ended a saintly and brilliant career, one that has left its mark deeply upon the religious life of this country, one to which we all owe more than we are probably aware of." The movement he set on foot was lasting; it continues to our own day, and has increased a hundredfold in strength and influence, giving well-founded hopes that, if the same law of progression holds good, there need be no limit to the extension of the Catholic Church in England.

The University of Oxford, like a stream flowing into an underground channel, disappeared from the pages of Catholic Church history soon after the introduction of the new learning. Its theological services to the Protestant religion were of no particular value, and did not prevent the Established Church of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries from falling into a state of inactivity which seemed to denote an advanced old age and the near approach of dissolution—"the last stage of theological decay," as Mr. Leslie Stephen expresses it. If there were to be an awakening and a regeneration, the impetus must come from without.

Cardinal Newman mentions Scott and Coleridge as having first roused interest in pre-Reformation Catholicism. With this for a beginning, the influence of German Catholics soon made itself felt among scholars. Mohler's "Symbolism "was to be found in the rooms of tutors at Oxford; the pictures of Overbeck and Cornelius led the way to the study of pre-Raphaelite art. Knowledge and love of the ancient faith having reappeared in the University, the current was not easily checked. It soon took the form of literature in the famous "Tracts for the Times," published in Oxford at intervals between the years 1833 and 1841. Ninety of these tracts, dealing with the then condition of the Church of England, saw the light, and owed their authorship to such men as Newman, Pusey, Keble, Hurrell Froude, and other leaders of the new High Church Movement. The Anglican divines realized that it was time to bestir themselves. The issue of the Tracts met with an opposition which ended in their total suppression.

From his position as President of the English College at Rome, Dr. Wiseman was eagerly watching the signs of the times. God was meanwhile preparing him for the great work of establishing the Catholic Church in England once more upon a broad and solid foundation. An accomplished and unprejudiced scholar, an easy and brilliant orator, a patron of literature, science, and the fine arts, the future Cardinal, untrammeled by ancient Catholic grievances or Anglican memories, was just the man required for the difficult task of meeting the advancing parties on either side, and uniting them in a common cause. Catholics were, on the one hand, emerging from their previous obscurity, while the new element of the Oxford converts was about to enter the Church. The points of view of the two parties were different, and yet it was essential that they should dwell together in unity. To bring about this happy issue was to be Wiseman's privilege—a privilege not unaccompanied by painful toil and heroic self-sacrifice.

Dr. Wiseman visited England in 1835, and delivered in London a course of lectures on "The Doctrines of the Catholic Church." Catholics and Protestants alike flocked to hear him, and all were charmed with his varied talents and his persuasive and gentle manners. There was in him neither the timidity nor the severity of the ecclesiastics who had just been relieved from the tyrannical subjection of the penal laws. "Protestants were equally astonished and gratified to find that acuteness and urbanity were not incompatible even in controversial argument. The spacious church of Moorfields was thronged on every evening of Dr. Wiseman's appearance. Many persons of position and education were converted, and all departed with abated prejudice and with very different notions about Catholicism from those with which they had been prepossessed by their education." Another good fruit of this visit was the establishment of the Dublin Review, in which Dr. Wiseman proposed to deal with questions raised by the "Tractarians." One of the articles on the Donatist heresy sent by him to this Review in 1839 was so convincing that Newman at least confessed the impossibility of further doubt.

The inner history of each individual concerned in the Oxford Movement is fraught with supreme interest. The reader follows the sublime autobiography to which Cardinal Newman gave the immortal name of Apologia pro Vita Sua  as he would follow the thrilling pages of a romance. The two works in which the career of Dr. W. G. Ward is described by his son are a full and complete exposition of the subject. Mr. T. W. Allies related his struggles and sacrifices in the volumes entitled A Life's Decision  and Per Crucem ad Lucem. And so of the others: their lives and works and writings are at hand for whoso wills to study them. We cannot here do more than trace the mighty movement which gave so many worthy sons back to the ancient faith.

CARDINAL NEWMAN

In March, 1841, the famous Tract 90  appeared. It maintained that the thirty-nine articles of Queen Elizabeth admitted of a completely Catholic interpretation, and that they contained no contradiction of the decisions of the Council of Trent. This bold assertion roused the sleeping sentinels of the Protestant camp, and a universal outcry was raised against the Tractarians. As no more Tracts appeared, the storm soon died away, but only to rise again in 1844, when Ward published his Ideal of a Christian Church, proving with merciless logic that such a Church could not exist out of communion with Rome. Newman had by this time retired to Littlemore, where in fasting and prayer he was seeking further light. Conversions followed each other in rapid succession, and at length Newman himself was ready. In October, 1845, the Passionist, Father Dominic, had the happiness of receiving him into the Church, and together with him a little band of earnest disciples. The movement did not stop here. Scholars have not ceased to join the Church and to add to her long roll of converts names not unworthy to rank with those of Lockhart and Formby, Oakeley and Dalgairns, Faber and Manning.

It would be difficult to estimate the sacrifices made by men such as these in thus turning away from all that had held them in the past. Their new position was to many of them a source of intense moral suffering, all the more severe that it was little understood by the Catholics whose ranks they had joined. They had lost position, emoluments, and friends—all, in fact, that the world holds dear. The bitterness of the cross was not lessened by the fact that it was willingly accepted. In this early struggle with adversity they found no more sympathetic friend than Dr. Wiseman. Yet even he was at times blamed for the favour he showed to these new allies at the expense, it was said, of those who had suffered the persecution of the penal code. The Oxford converts were looked upon with suspicion, and, it is to be feared, with some prejudice. Time, however, softened these feelings, and Newman, at least, outlived all hostility, even that of his deserted Alma Mater.

It must be remembered also that a heroic part, too often overlooked, was taken in the movement by ladies who, like Mrs. Ward and Mrs. Allies, were the chief support and encouragement of their husbands. Many a cultured woman chose the path of obscurity and poverty rather than shut her eyes to the light, and not a few daughters of Oxford converts consecrated their lives to God in the religious state. Their example led others to the faith, and among them must be mentioned Augusta Theodosia Drane, afterwards the Dominican, Mother Frances Raphael, whose contributions to Catholic literature were as opportune as they are valuable.

While the Oxford Movement was in progress the increase in the number of Catholics, subsequent to the Emancipation Act, determined Pope Gregory XVI. to double the number of Vicars-Apostolic. This was done in 1840, and proved to be but a prelude to the restoration of that ancient Hierarchy which had become extinct during the Elizabethan persecution. The eight Vicars-Apostolic united in petitioning the Holy See for so great a blessing. Dr. Wiseman, now Bishop of Melipotamus (in partibus infidelium), coadjutor of the Central District, and President of Oscott College, had great influence in Rome. His thorough acquaintance both with the methods of the Roman Court and with the current opinions and tendencies of English society rendered him the best possible medium of communication between the two. While negotiations were pending, Dr. Wiseman applied himself chiefly to the task of smoothing away the difficulties of the Oxford converts, and making of St. Mary's College, Oscott, a centre of light and learning to the Church in England. The later years of the pontificate of Gregory XVI. passed uneventfully, and in 1846 his death was followed by the election of Pius IX., who was destined to re-establish the Hierarchy.

In 1847 Bishop Wiseman went to Rome for the purpose of laying the state of English affairs clearly before the new Pope. The troubles of the year 1848 interfered with the deliberations, and delayed the restoration of Catholic England "to its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament from which its light had so long vanished." The long waiting came to an end in 1850, when the Papal brief was issued, erecting the Archbishopric of Westminster, with twelve suffragan dioceses. The first Archbishop was Cardinal Wiseman, who had previously been admitted to the Sacred College. He lost no time in publishing a pastoral letter announcing the good news to English Catholics. But Protestants took the matter up, and the "Papal aggression "was received with a storm of angry vituperation. An Act was passed prohibiting the assumption of ecclesiastical titles, and timid souls feared that the Catholic Church in England was doomed. But Cardinal Wiseman was more than equal to the occasion. He not only pacified the British public, but gained their confidence and admiration by his masterly "Appeal to the Reason and Good Feeling of the People of England on the Subject of the Catholic Hierarchy." This was followed by popular lectures and public proceedings of all kinds, by means of which the great Cardinal won a position for himself and for his successors in the Archiepiscopal See which a more cautious or a less imaginative mind would have deemed unattainable.

The first provincial Synod of the new Hierarchy was held at Oscott in July, 1852, and gave occasion for an inspired sermon preached by Dr. Newman. Referring to the Bishops who were there assembled, he said: "A second temple rises on the ruins of the old. Canterbury has gone its way, and York is gone, and Durham is gone, and Winchester is gone. It was sore to part with them. We clung to the visions of past greatness, and would not believe it could come to nought; but the Church in England has died, and the Church lives again. Westminster and Nottingham, Beverley and Hexham, Northampton and Shrewsbury, if the world lasts, shall be names as musical to the ear, as stirring to the heart, as the glories we have lost; and saints shall rise out of them, if God so will, and doctors once again shall give the law to Israel, and preachers call to penance and to justice, as at the beginning. What is to startle you? What to seduce you? Who is to stop you, whether you are to suffer or to do, whether to lay the foundations of the Church in tears, or to put the crown upon the work in jubilation?"

The nineteenth century had run half its course when this trumpet note resounded through the land. The Catholic hearts of England were roused and encouraged. They responded to the call by renewed labours and sacrifices, and by, their strong, united endeavours covered England with churches and schools. The latter half of the century saw progress out of all proportion to the numbers and influence of the Catholic body, and justified the enthusiasm with which the country was once more dedicated to Our Lady under its ancient title of "The Dowry of Mary."

The Church and Liberalism

I. The Spirit of Liberalism

The Church Militant, like an army passing through hostile territory, must ever be prepared to meet new enemies, or rather to encounter the same foe under changed colours and with different tactics. Persecutions, heresies, defections from primitive fervour, the lapse of whole nations from the faith, are but phases of the great struggle which will reach its climax in the days of Antichrist. The Catholic Revival had not progressed far when new troubles arose.

This Revival was in reality a return to medieval ideals and practices. But the world had changed, and could not retrace its steps through the centuries. Retrospect was useful as giving a starting-point, but it could not provide a permanent resting-place. Moreover, the world was beginning to know itself better, and to turn the search light of philosophy upon the problems of existence. Eminent minds had been busy in purely intellectual spheres, seeking for solutions of which they had been deprived by the Protestant Reformation. They had at least discovered that the rejection and destruction of ancient institutions and landmarks was a mistake; humanity could only progress by constructive growth from the deep roots of the past. It became the habit of philosophers to explain all things by theories of evolution. There was much in this that was consonant with the doctrines of the Church; there was also much in it which might lead unwary souls far astray.

The theory of evolution, in its Christian sense, was applied by Cardinal Newman to matters of religion in his "Development of Christian Doctrine," in which he shows that Catholic dogma, ever the same, has nevertheless grown with the ages, and taken new shapes to suit the varying needs of the changing times. The vitality of the Church is proved by her living teaching, which assimilates the ever-increasing store of human knowledge. Thus, in the thirteenth century, the current Aristotelian philosophy, which was supposed to be directly hostile to Christianity, was made use of by St. Thomas Aquinas to give logical precision and accuracy of expression to the scholastic theology. Nor can it be doubted that the scientific discoveries of modern times, when fully understood and developed, will harmonize perfectly with the teaching of the Church, and prove once more that truth is incapable of contradicting itself. Protestantism, on the contrary, denies the possibility of evolution in dogma, and abides by its own interpretation of the letter of Scripture. The consequence of this stagnation is that when Scripture does not fit a particular case, there is no other refuge than negation, and negation means liberalism in its most extreme form. The followers of liberalism, according to Leo XIII., "deny the existence of any Divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; whence arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless licence."

When from this general view of liberalism we turn to the question of "Liberal Catholicism," we find ourselves on somewhat different ground. The English Bishops, in their joint pastoral of 1900, compare the extreme liberal Catholic to "one who, having received a gracious invitation from his Sovereign to reside in the royal palace, should take advantage of his position to destroy or dispose of the royal furniture according to his own caprice or that of friends outside, and to make even structural alterations, without any kind of warrant for so doing." It is clear that a Catholic may have broad and tolerant views without in any way encouraging or countenancing such conduct as is here implied. But, since it is hard to distinguish between the liberalism of so loyal a Catholic as, for instance, Montalembert and that of an incipient pagan like Renan, it is natural that rigid conservatives should be liable to take alarm and at times confuse one with the other. Hence arose regrettable differences between men who, if they had paused to consider the situation, might have recognised that they were acting on principles fundamentally the same. We cannot here do more than touch upon the salient points of a controversy in which theologians and politicians took active parts in France, Germany, and England, until the Church herself interfered by the Vatican decree of the year 1870.

Pius IX. began his reign with conciliatory and liberal intentions. He warmly recognised the adaptability of Catholicism to progress of every kind, and was prepared to meet the modern spirit in all things not at variance with truth and justice. In Italy especially he made concessions, social, political, and ecclesiastical, which alarmed prudent men of the older school, while they gained him immense popularity throughout Europe. His generosity, however, met with ingratitude, and he was even expected to extend it so far as to become a mere instrument in the hands of the Italian radicals. On his refusal to accede to their demands, his Minister, Count Rossi, was assassinated, and the Holy Father himself was driven to seek safety in flight. To quote from Mr. Wilfrid Ward: "The murder of De Rossi, the triumph of the Republicans, the Pope's own enforced flight from Rome, put an abrupt termination to his concessions to liberalism. If he had begun in the spirit of Lacordaire, who sat on the extreme left of the Assembly, like Lacordaire he soon learnt something of the character of the men who flourished and dishonoured the standard of freedom. The French priest retired from public life, but the Pope had necessarily to continue to deal with the people and with the secular power."

LACORDAIRE.

Lacordaire and Montalembert had, indeed, once more come to the front in defence of the cause of freedom. When the former retired disheartened from his seat in Parliament, and devoted himself to his famous "Conferences "at Notre Dame of Paris, Montalembert, with new friends, continued the struggle. The chief object of the latter was to find some means of reconciling Catholic ideals with the demands of the modern spirit. These views were advocated in the Correspondant, the organ of the liberal Catholic party in France. But they were violently opposed by the Ultra-montane journal, L'Univers, whose editor was Louis Veuillot. The rival camps carried on sharp debates, though they were at the same time always ready to unite their forces against the free-thinkers of the day. Montalembert and Veuillot, representing as they did Catholic liberalism and Ultramontanism, set aside their differences when it was a question of confronting the irreligious army led by Victor Hugo.

Meanwhile, Pius IX., restored to Rome in 1850 under the protection of France, applied himself to counteracting the growing errors of liberalism. The large number of documents addressed by him to the Bishops of the world, between 1850 and 1864, were finally summarized in the "Syllabus "attached to the Encyclical "Quanta Cura." Pantheism, Rationalism, Socialism, secret societies, and similar products of liberalism run to seed, were here definitely condemned. The condemnations were, of course, taken by the enemies of the Church as a patent proof of the narrowness of Rome and of her opposition to modern enlightenment and progress. This excited no surprise, but it was painful to note that L' Univers, turned the Pope's strictures on liberalism against the Catholic liberal party voiced by the Correspondant. Needless to say, the Holy Father had no such intention, but the anti-Catholic press made use of this interpretation to level its shafts of ridicule at both parties. The storm passed over, nevertheless, and little by little all the points of the "Syllabus "were acknowledged to be reasonable and well-founded, even by men who were most unwilling to allow that Rome could be aught but inimical to progress and enlightenment.

II. The Council of the Vatican

"And now," says Mr. Wilfrid Ward, "began in earnest the struggle of opinion which culminated in the Vatican decree of 1870. Apart altogether from the extreme Liberals, whose leaders ultimately refused to accept the definition, there were, in France, Germany, and England, large numbers of representative Catholics who looked with great regret on the interpretations of the Syllabus  and Encyclical which gave them the colour of a declaration of war against modern civilization . . . In England, as elsewhere, this temper of mind did not at first show itself in an attitude of aversion to the definition. Its most distinguished representative, Cardinal Newman, said, shortly before the Council: 'The thing we have to be anxious about is not that there should. be no definition, but what the definition will be.'"

To us who as children have learnt from our Catechism the definition of infallibility, it seems strange that there should have been any anxiety or doubt as to the result. But, for Catholics who lived at that time, the solution of the problem lay in the unknown future, and none could pronounce absolutely for or against the doctrine until the Church had spoken. All were, however, free to discuss the matter, to give and to seek opinions. Was the Pope personally infallible? If so, with what limitations? What was to be thought of the Gallican proposition that a General Council must consent before an article could be of faith? The answer could scarcely admit of doubt; but would the point be defined? And, if defined, would the definition be opportune? This was the crucial difficulty for the great majority who had already accepted the doctrine of infallibility as afterwards defined. It split them into Opportunists and Inopportunists, whilst leaving them united as to what they believed.

On the 8th of December, 1869, at the invitation of Pius IX., some seven hundred Bishops from all parts of the world met for the opening of the twentieth (Ecumenical Council—the first of the Vatican. In this magnificent gathering there was absolute freedom for thought and discussion, and there were also various shades of opinion. The American Bishop Chatard thus sketches the chief differences. "If any one imagines," he says, "that all who joined in opposing a definition from the outset were actuated by the same motives he would certainly be wide of the mark. While the main point of the controversy was held by the 'Ultramontanes' without exception—and there was but the one question as to the formula to be used—the opposition, as they were generally called, taken all together, had no fixed principle of accord, save an agreement to disagree with the defining of the doctrine as of faith. To analyse the constituent parts of this body we shall class them according to ideas.

"First, in conviction, in determination, and in influence, were the Gallicans, properly so-called, who held and taught the very opposite of the proposed dogma. . . . This class was not very numerous . . .

"The second class comprised those who, believing the doctrine themselves, or at least favouring it speculatively, did not think it capable of definition, not deeming the tradition of the Church clear enough on this point.

"A third class—the most numerous—regarded the definition as possible, but practically fraught with peril to the Church as impeding conversions, as exasperating to governments. For the sake of peace, and for the good of souls, they would not see it proclaimed as of faith."

The eyes of the entire world were fixed upon the proceedings the Council, and hopes were entertained by the enemies of the Church that divisions would ensue from differences of opinion. Session after session went by, until at last, on July i8, 1870, the votes of the Fathers of the Council were taken for the last time. Four hundred and thirty-three Bishops declared in favour of the definition; only two voted against it. Those Bishops who did not wish to speak their minds in the Assembly absented themselves with the Pope's permission; but they, with others whom illness or old age had prevented from being present, gave in their adhesion as soon as the Infallibility of the Pope was declared to be an Article of Faith. Not one raised his voice to dispute the solemn definition that the Holy Father when speaking ex cathedra  is incapable of error in faith or morals. A remnant of theologians, with the German professor, Dr. Dollinger, at their head, refused to accept the decision of the Council. They assumed the name of "Old Catholics," and managed to carry on their schism in Germany by obtaining episcopal consecration for some of their number from the Dutch Jansenists. Their resistance to the infallible authority of the Pope was but the prelude to a series of misfortunes which led to their final disappearance from the pages of history.

POPE PIUS IX. AND SOME OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES.

As Pius IX. rose on that glorious day and intoned the Te Deum, the Catholic world was with him heart and soul. More convinced than ever that "where Peter is there is the Church," and that "Peter had spoken by the lips of Pius," each one felt that true liberty consists in loving submission to the Vicar of Christ, and that his infallibility is the safeguard of faith and the pledge of the promises on which hope rests.

Lucifer's war-cry "Non serviam"(I will not obey), still rang out in the liberal camp. Popes and Councils spoke in vain when they sought to bring back the erring ones to the right path. The evil was more rampant than ever when, in 1878, Leo XIII. assumed the tiara. "The enemies of public order," he said in his first encyclical, "have thought nothing better suited to destroy the foundations of society than to make an unflagging attack upon the Church of God, to bring her into discredit and odium by spreading infamous calumnies, and accusing her of being opposed to genuine progress." Throughout his pontificate he did not cease by word and writing to warn the faithful against the insidious attacks made by the advocates of false liberty upon the principles of law and order. True liberty, according to Leo XIII., is attainable under any form of government, provided that rulers and subjects abide by the law of God. "Whatever the nature of the government," he says in his celebrated encyclical "Immortale Dei," "rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount Ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State." Subjects, in their turn, must remember that if God has given them liberty they must use it aright and within the limits assigned to them by Church and State. It stands to reason that in no other way can that order be secured which will preserve to each one his individual freedom, and prevent the encroachments of lawlessness upon the rights of the weak and unprotected.

The Papacy Triumphant in Captivity

I. From 1815 to 1846

Rome, the ancient mistress of the world, has been for close upon two thousand years the head and centre of Christendom. Yet, during all those centuries, the powers of the world have ceaselessly striven to drive the Vicar of Christ from his earthly stronghold and to cast him out a wanderer among the nations. Untaught by the lessons of history, Kings and Emperors have renewed the attempt in vain, learning only when too late that he who strikes against that rock shall perish. The seventy years of exile at Avignon may well have seemed interminable to the Church of the Middle Ages; the Church of the early twentieth century need not despair of seeing the end of a worse captivity. We have now to review the chronological sequence of events which led to the loss of independence by the Holy See.

Revolutionary France having, in 1798, seized the Pope's temporal possessions, forced Pius VI. to undertake a journey which terminated in his death at Valence, on the Rhone. His successor, Pius VII., spent a great part of his long pontificate under the power of Napoleon, enduring at Savona and Fontainebleau the bitterness of imprisonment and exile. When retribution fell upon the persecutor, the Church enjoyed a brief period of triumph, too quickly hailed as the dawn of a millennium of religious peace and progress.

At the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the representatives of the European Powers conceived the project of forming a "Holy Alliance" for the purpose of cementing general union and brotherhood among Kings. But, strange as it may seem, the Sovereign Pontiff declined to join the association. England also held aloof. The explanation of this abstention lay in the fact that an alliance between men of totally different religious views, or of no definite views at all, could be but chimerical. Each potentate had at heart his own interests rather than those of religion, and this was soon proved by the conduct of the members. The "Holy Alliance" became associated with despotism and tyranny in the minds of the people, and discredit was cast upon religion in general. This was a sufficient basis for the secret societies to work upon. They put forward liberal and philanthropic zeal for the well-being of humanity as the remedy for antiquated beliefs and bondage to Church and State. Rome, which had repudiated the "Holy Alliance," was, nevertheless, assailed as the chief instigator of opposition to the liberties of the people.

Napoleon had swooped down like an eagle upon his victim in the broad light of day. Not so these new enemies of the Papacy. They burrowed like moles in darkness, seeking to reach their ends by winding and treacherous paths. Europe was, as it were, honeycombed at this period by the secret society of the Carbonari, the members of which had set themselves the task of undermining the foundations of governments and subverting the existing order of nations and States. Their emblems—the wolf and the lamb—typified the savage power of rulers on the one hand, and the helplessness of peoples on the other. Their avowed object was to destroy the wolf and to restore the lamb to freedom. The ramifications of the Carbonari enabled their leaders to work simultaneously in all the countries of Southern Europe. Hence the widespread revolutions of 1820, 1830, and 1848. It was, for a considerable time, impossible for them to make any advance in the Papal States. The long absence of Pius VII., and his triumphant return, had drawn his people round him; and his popularity was strengthened and secured by his personal charm, and by his mild, beneficent rule. Until his death, in 1823, he enjoyed among his loyal and affectionate subjects the reward of his long and patient endurance of unparalleled trials.

ST. ALPONSUS DE LIGUORI.

Even outside the Papal States, Italy was not left defenceless. The Fathers of the Institute of Charity, founded by Rosmini in 1828, took up the task of teaching, and exercised an influence analogous to that of the Christian Brothers in France. But besides this, they devoted themselves to the work of giving missions, after the example of the Passionists, whose founder, St. Paul of the Cross, was one of the great glories of the eighteenth century. Their labours spread beyond Italy, but they were surpassed in extent and influence by those of the Order of the Most Holy Redeemer, founded in 1749 by St. Alphonsus Liguori. This great Saint and Doctor of the Church was particularly anxious that the Redemptorists should give themselves entirely to the work of preaching missions and retreats in the most neglected and abandoned places. The sect et societies met no greater foe than the zeal of the great Redemptorist missionaries, who won back to God multitudes of misguided men.

The short reigns of Leo XII. and Pius VIII. passed in comparative calm, though both these Popes found it necessary to utter serious warnings of impending troubles. The growing indifference in matters of religion was the result of the new gospel preached by infidel societies multiplying on all sides. One of the most daring conspirators of the Carbonari took advantage of the unrest preceding the European revolution of 1830 to found an organization called "Young Italy." This was Mazzini, a Genoese of good birth and education, whose imagination had been fired by the idea of delivering his country from the yoke of the Austrians, and uniting it under one government in the form of a republic rather than of a monarchy.

It will be remembered that the Congress of Vienna had reinstated the Pope in all his former possessions, with the exception of Avignon, at the same time that it acknowledged and confirmed his undoubted right of sovereignty. The violent supporters of a united Italy plotted to overthrow the pontifical government while the conclave was sitting in 1829 for the election of the new Pope on the death of Pius VIII. The conspiracy was discovered, and the election of Gregory XVI. was greeted with acclamation by the mass of the Roman people, whose loyalty had not yet been seriously affected by the secret societies. For his connection with this and other plots, Mazzini was arrested and thrown into prison, but he obtained a pardon in 1831 on condition that he should leave the country. He withdrew to Marseilles, where he was joined by many of his followers, and he continued to spread his doctrines in the inflammatory journal, Young Italy, of which he became the editor.

But whatever might be the enmity of infidels towards the Church, the population of Italy was mainly Catholic, and entirely devoted to the Holy See. The aims and methods of Mazzini were alien to the minds of the more moderate of his countrymen, and many of them turned their hopes towards a national confederation under the presidency of the Pope. Since 1815, a large portion of the peninsula, including Lombardy, Tuscany, and the Venetian territory, with the cities of Modena, Parma, and Lucca, had been held by the Austrians. The severity of their rule added not a little to their unpopularity as foreigners, and all Italians were agreed that a strong effort should be made to shake off the yoke, if need be, by force of arms. Trusting to this general sentiment, Mazzini returned to Italy, and in 1833 took upon himself the responsibility of what he called an "Invasion" of Savoy. The object of this wild raid was to coerce Charles Albert, King of Savoy, to make war upon Austria. The utter defeat of "Young Italy" was followed by the renewed exile of Mazzini, who took refuge in Switzerland for two years, and then in England, whence, up to the year 1848, he continued to send forth revolutionary documents of all kinds.

II. Pontificate of Pius IX. (1846–1878)

The death of Gregory XVI. occurred in June, 1846, and, after an unusually short conclave, Pius IX. was elected in his stead. The unanimity of the Cardinals was a proof of his popularity, and of his recognised capacity for the fulfillment of his difficult task. Perhaps no previous Pope was ever so personally near and dear to the hearts of the millions of his children; nor did any ever gain so rapid, even if transitory, an ascendancy over the prejudices and antipathies of the opposite camp. The praises of Pio Nono were sung by enemies as well as by friends, while the world fondly imagined that the traditional and conservative procedure of Rome would now be reversed and forgotten.

We have elsewhere alluded to the endeavours made by Pius IX. to conciliate the irreconcilable liberals of Italy. His failure was due to his incomplete knowledge of the forces ranged against him, or rather to the incredible means taken by the secret societies to wreck all his projects. Emissaries of the red republican type, under the orders of Mazzini, insinuated themselves under various disguises into Rome, and, mingling with the lower classes of the people, fomented the revolutionary spirit. Then, issuing forth followed by hundreds of misguided enthusiasts, they raised day after day new cries for concessions of the most extravagant kinds. When it was fully evident that a strong hand was needed to repress such demonstrations, and Pius IX. had named Count Rossi as his Minister, all went well for a time. Order was restored in the city, and the revolutionists no longer dared to raise their cries of revolt. But the daggers of assassins put an end to Rossi's life in the midst of his firm and vigilant administration. The revolution burst into flame, and the streets of Rome were filled with a disorderly mob. Mazzini and "Young Italy "were threatening the Quirinal, and the shadow of captivity hovered once more over the Eternal City.

Deserted by his soldiers, and in hourly danger of assassination, Pius IX. at length determined to seek safety in flight. Through the good offices of the French, Spanish, and Bavarian Ambassadors, he was enabled to leave the Quirinal secretly, and to make his escape to the Neapolitan territory, where he took refuge in the nearest town, the small port of Gaeta. The little fortress was at once transformed into a brilliant court, where Ambassadors from all countries thronged to offer respectful sympathy to the illustrious exile. The King of Naples came with the royal family and, prostrate at the feet of His Holiness, welcomed him as their guest. "At the very hour of his fall," said the London Times, "Pius IX. is more entirely and essentially Pope and Head of the Church than many of his predecessors amidst all the splendours of the Lateran. "

Meanwhile, unhappy Rome became a den of thieves and the haunt of all wickedness. But Catholic Europe could not look on idly at such profanation. France nobly cast aside all selfish interests and sprang to the rescue of the Holy Father. Whatever may have been the motives of Louis Napoleon, then President of the Republic, in sending an army to Rome, it was the old chivalry of Frenchmen that won the victory and restored the Pontiff to his throne. French troops under General Oudinot landed at Civita Vecchia without meeting any opposition, and, encouraged by success, pressed on to the capital, expecting to effect an easy entrance. But another enemy had just appeared; Garibaldi had united his forces to those of Mazzini.

This soldier of fortune had been from his youth closely connected with secret societies, and by his versatility had made himself useful to them in many ways, by land and sea, in both the Old and the New World. Having returned from South America in 1847, he offered his services to Pius IX.; but, not meeting with a cordial response, he turned to the Princes of Italy. All declined the responsibility of hiring so dangerous a mercenary, so that Garibaldi was thrown back upon brigandage. An army of men similar in character to himself soon gathered round him, and when the favourable moment came, he presented himself at the head of his band to the self-elected republican Government of Rome. Mazzini gladly availed himself of their services.

Met by this unlooked-for resistance, the French were for the moment repulsed, though it was certain that their scientific methods of warfare would finally win. From June 1 to June 29, 1849, the improvised garrison of the city held out, and then Garibaldi, with three thousand followers, stole away, carrying with them considerable booty. Mazzini also provided for his own safety by flight. The wretched inhabitants, left to their own resources, were only too glad to accept humbly the merciful terms offered to them by the French in the name of the Holy Father. By the spring of 1850 they had put the city into order, and were ready to receive their Sovereign with due honour.

"On the afternoon of April 12, surrounded by Ambassadors and Princes, Cardinals, priests, and people, Pius IX. re-entered the capital of the Christian world. As the banner of St. Peter spread out its silken folds in the clear Italian sky, the voice of a hundred and one cannon echoed to the Sabine Hills the glad tidings of the return to Rome of its rightful Prince. And when the sun went down, the Capitol, St. Peter's, the Pincian Hill, the banks of the Tiber, the palaces, the streets, and the great squares, shone in all the brilliancy of artificial light; for from the cathedral to the lowliest cottage, Rome, in her delirium of joy, had crowned herself with fire." Such was the description of that memorable event given by a contemporary writer, inspired by the enthusiasm of the time.

Pius IX. proceeded with the work of the Church, restoring the English Hierarchy in 1851, proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and sending forth encyclicals to guide the nations in the perilous paths of modern times. Revolution was, meanwhile, still seething round him, and the secret societies were threatening his destruction and that of Rome. A man had risen in Piedmont whose dream in life was "to make the Eternal City, on which rested twenty-five centuries of glory, the splendid capital of the Italian kingdom."

The house of Savoy had with difficulty held possession of Piedmont and Sardinia until Victor Emmanuel II. placed the reins of government in the hands of his astute Minister, Count Cavour. The task of expelling the Austrians and, with Piedmont as a basis, creating a free, united Italy was a dream for the realization of which Cavour strained every nerve. Had he, in this, respected the Papal States, venerable and glorious in their antiquity beyond any monarchy in the world, he would have honoured his country and won the esteem of Catholics in every age and nation. But the goal of his patriotic ambition was Rome, and even honour must be sacrificed to attain it. He found an ally in Napoleon III., who, while affecting to champion the Pope, played into the hands of Cavour for the sake of adding Savoy and Nice to the French Empire. Relying on France, Piedmont engaged in a war against Austria in 1854. Victor Emmanuel gained a decisive victory at Magenta on June 4, and three days later entered Milan in triumph. The revolution spread rapidly through the northern territories; the Austrians were again defeated at Solferino, and by the treaty of Villafranca, on July 9, they consented to evacuate Italy. Napoleon, however, to the intense vexation of Cavour, had on his own account guaranteed Venetia to Austria.

Meanwhile the King of Naples had been struggling with a revolution which was eventually to drive him from his throne. Mazzini and Garibaldi were open partisans of the revolted Sicilians and Neapolitans, and they were secretly favoured by Cavour, who had determined that Naples should form part of the new kingdom he had undertaken to construct. It was evident that, if the revolutionists succeeded in gaining possession of the Neapolitan territory, the Papal States would lie open to an invasion.

In this extremity Pius IX. sent an invitation to the veteran French General, Lamoriciere, offering him the command of his little army. The hero was rejoiced to place his sword at the disposal of the Holy Father, though he entertained but little hope of being successful. The news spread throughout the Catholic world that help was needed, and in every country there was a renewal of the enthusiasm which once inspired the cry, "God wills it!" A noble company of Catholic gentlemen of all nations gathered under the banner of Lamoriciere, and adopted the name of the French troops who had served under him in Algeria. As Papal "Zouaves" they proved by their heroic valour that chivalry was not extinct, but that it lived on in the Catholic Church, where it had originated. Their presence in the Papal States was an excuse to Cavour for an attack upon the "foreigners," as he chose to call them. On September 18, 1860, Castelfidardo was the scene of deeds worthy of the ancient Crusaders. But, in spite of the bravery of his Zouaves, Lamoriciere was obliged to fall back with great loss upon Ancona, and there, after a final display of valour, to capitulate. In less than a month the whole of the Papal States had fallen into the hands of the Piedmontese, with the exception of the narrow strip of territory along the coast, known as the Patrimony of St. Peter. Naples was added to Italy in November of the same year, and in 1866 Venetia was recovered from the Austrians. Cavour's "United Italy "now only needed Rome to be complete.

France kept up a semblance of protection until 1870, when Napoleon withdrew his troops from Rome under pretext of the necessity arising from the war with Prussia. This was the signal for the advance of the Italian "patriots." The Papal army, including a remnant of heroic Zouave volunteers, entrenched itself behind the ramparts with a courage only restrained by the positive command of the Pope from shedding the last drop of their blood in defence of the good cause. Early in the morning of September 20 the cannonade began. The walls of the Eternal City were not proof against the guns of the nineteenth century, so that by to a.m. a large breach was made. This was the signal agreed upon by Pius IX. for hoisting the white flag of surrender. The Italian troops took possession of the city, and the Pope was deprived of his remaining temporal possessions, retaining only the palace of the Vatican, with its adjoining gardens. Catholic Europe looked on in amazement at the incredible injustice of the proceedings, and at the still more incredible indifference of Christian governments to the engagements made in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna. Victor Emmanuel had the audacity to set up a royal residence in the Quirinal, and Garibaldi, henceforth a writer of low-class novels, took a seat in the Italian Parliament.

Pius IX. lived for eight years a prisoner in his own palace; but never was imprisonment more glorious. The deep and steadfast affection and loyalty of the entire Catholic world was poured out to him in letters, and addresses, and pilgrimages. Never had any Pontiff in the most prosperous days of the Papacy so strong a hold upon the universal Church. So great was the enthusiasm for the captive that it might almost be said that Victor Emmanuel had so far over-reached himself as to provide the Pope with a world-wide empire in return for a petty corner of Italy. Nevertheless, the glaring inconsistency of the House of Savoy in erecting its paltry throne by the side of the immortal "Throne of the Fisherman," and at the same time making over to France the ancestral territory from which it derives its name, remains one of the wonders of the twentieth as it was of the nineteenth century. "What is happening to-day," said Pius IX., "is but a trial "—a long and bitter trial indeed, but one that assuredly will have an end.

On August 23, 1871, the pontificate of Pius IX. "saw the years of Peter," amid the joyful congratulations of a sympathizing world. The celebration of the golden jubilee of his episcopate in June, 1877, was another triumph. Early in 1878 he died, full of years and honours, in spite of all the efforts of his enemies. He had been preceded to the grave by both Napoleon III. and Victor Emmanuel, neither of whom had reaped much comfort or glory from their betrayal of the Vicar of Christ.

III. Pontificate of Leo XIII. (1878–1903)

While the enemies of the Church were considering what should be done to take advantage of this crisis, the Conclave had assembled in the Vatican and elected Cardinal Joachim Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, who took the name of Leo, and immediately installed himself as a prisoner in the Vatican before the eyes of the whole world. He had already distinguished himself as a diplomatist, and his whole reign was to be passed in active negotiations which had for their object the peace and union of Christian peoples. A subtle humour was perceptible in his first official relation with the occupant of the second throne in Rome. The announcement of the new Pope's accession was addressed to the "King of Sardinia," at Turin, and, as His Majesty was not to be found in his own capital, there was naturally some delay in its delivery. Leo XIII. also protested seriously and most vigorously against the Italian occupation, but no attention was paid to his complaints.

However deaf King Humbert might be to the voice of the captive Pontiff, the rest of the world lent a willing ear to his tactful suggestions with regard to harmonious settlements in cases of disputes between rival nations. Spain and Germany were prevented from going to war in 1885, when Bismarck appealed to the Pope to act as arbitrator. This friendly action on the part of Bismarck was practically the termination of his persecution of Catholicity, which, since the year 1870, he had carried on under the name of "Kulturkampf." The encyclicals of Leo XIII. were of universal application, being addressed to reason and justice as well as to faith. He was the acknowledged exponent of his age, both in politics and in religion, a fact which was proved by his advice to the French Catholics to rally loyally round the existing Government, even though its principles might not be their own. The almost monotonous life of the prisoner of the Vatican presents an extraordinary contrast to the eventful careers of his immediate predecessors, with their Vicissitudes of flight and return, disaster and triumph. Yet though Leo never passed beyond his prison walls, his heart and intellect reached out to the ends of the earth, and took a share in every event which affected the welfare of his world-wide family and flock of faithful Catholics.

In a retrospect of the pontificate of Leo XIII, Mgr. Moyes writes as follows: "We make no attempt to summarize the endless activities of a ruler who founded some two hundred and fifty bishoprics, signed over twenty Concordats, and touched on every question as it arose, from agrarian troubles in Ireland to the religious needs of Japan; from "Christian Democracy" to "Americanism"; from the slave-trade in Africa to the establishment of diplomatic relations at St. Petersburg. The perplexed and ever more grievous condition of the Church in France would demand a volume to itself. The Temporal Power, though no longer in existence, has determined a whole series of vicissitudes in European politics. Every country has claimed attention from this great ruler, whose strength appeared to be as inexhaustible as his vigilance was unsleeping."

Leo XIII., like his predecessor, reached and surpassed the years of Peter. He celebrated the golden jubilee of his episcopate ten years before his death, which occurred on July 20, 1903. In his captivity the Papacy was more than ever triumphant. The glorious record of his pontificate will remain emblazoned on the pages of history, growing ever brighter as time rolls on, while the names of the enemies of the Church sink into deeper and darker oblivion. Mazzini, Garibaldi, Cavour, and the House of Savoy, shall fade from the memories of men, but the glory of their captives shall live for eternity.

IV. Pontificate of Pius X. (1903– )

With the life of the "Prisoner of the Vatican" the history of the Church in the early twentieth century became more and more identified as the years went on. Of Pius X. it has been well said that in him the Church obtained what she most needed at the moment, "a chief Pastor as simple, as frank, and as transparently honest as St. Peter himself"; and withal, we may add, as strong, as firm, and as indefectibly faithful as the rock on which the Church is built.

The programme of the new Pontiff, as announced in his first encyclical, was a wholly spiritual one. In St. Paul's words, he expressed his wish and his will "to re-establish all things in Christ "; and having once put his hand to that great task, he never looked back. It was soon realized that wherever an abuse or a trace of negligence existed, a motu proprio  might be expected to set it right.

As ignorance of Divine things is the cause of the widespread unbelief and spiritual indifference of these latter times, the remedy lies evidently in the diffusion of religious knowledge. Not only by decrees, but by his own personal example, did Pius X. testify his sense of the importance of instructing children, and the Christian people generally, in the truths of faith. But, for the proper instruction of the people, a learned and zealous clergy is indispensable, and with this object in view the Pope turned his attention to the seminaries, making salutary regulations for the education of those called to the priesthood.

Closely connected with ecclesiastical training was the codification of Canon Law, rendering its study more simple and its application more practical through the new arrangement of the Roman Curia. In this relation, again, the revision of the text of Holy Scripture and the reform of sacred music, together with many other changes and improvements, benefited alike the clergy and the laity.

By degrees the whole hierarchical organization was examined and brought into vigorous working order, so that, from the youngest cleric upwards to the Pope himself, the utmost harmony of action prevailed. Rules were laid down for the election of future Popes; the work of the Sacred College of Cardinals was redistributed; new Archbishoprics and dioceses were created; the relations of Propaganda with missionary countries were regulated; nothing, in short, was left undone which could lead to the better performance of God's work on earth.

Every year of the twentieth century sees an international Eucharistic Congress, each more brilliant and impressive than the last. Devotion to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, thus publicly manifested, is supplemented by the observance of the decrees of Pius X. on frequent and daily communion and the early communion of children.

The social problems of the age had been placed in a clear light by the famous encyclicals of Leo XIII. Without departing in anything from the principles therein laid down, Pius X. continued the work of forming the Catholic conscience on all points relating to labour. Nor did he allow the ardour of those who acted by his advice to lead them too far on the way of reform. Hence, when in France the young and eager battalions of the "Sillon" had, through zeal for the good cause, found themselves in danger of being drawn into the ranks of the enemy, the Father of Christendom raised a warning hand. The docile troops, under their noble leader, fell back in good order, and, ranging themselves as the Sovereign Pontiff directed under the guidance of their bishops, continued to fight bravely for the Church and for France.

In France, as later in Portugal, the separation of Church and State was conducted, on the Catholic side, with the utmost dignity and prudence. The remarkable harmony of action on the part of the French bishops was due to their unquestioning obedience to the voice of the Holy See. By this means the people were preserved from the pitfalls and snares prepared by the anti-clerical party in power, and a wonderful reaction in favour of religion was set on foot.

The ancient errors concealed under the name of "Modernism," so aptly called by Pius X. "the synthesis of all the heresies," met the same fate as their predecessors. "It must needs be," says our Lord, "that scandals come; but, nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." Looking back upon the history of the Church, we see the many-headed hydra of heresy ever ready to strike, yet never allowed to inflict a mortal blow. The old enemy grows ever older and more feeble; the Church of Christ is for ever renewing her immortal youth.

We may fitly close this brief survey of the reign of Pius X. by a passing reference to the jubilee and festivities in honour of the sixteenth centenary of the victory of Constantine the Great at the Milvian Bridge in 313.

The Propagation of the Faith

Standing on the threshold of the twentieth century, the Church beheld vast fields white for the harvest, where already labourers not a few toiled in the noonday heat. Never before had there been such an extension of missionary work, never so efficient an organization of the forces at command, never so glad a response on the part of those outside the fold.

The establishment of Propaganda early in the seventeenth century had been followed by the foundation of congregations and societies devoted to the preaching of the Gospel in heathen lands. A new feature was the participation of religious women in the evangelization of their own sex, a work hitherto left almost untouched, owing to the difficulties encountered by the missionaries in dealing with it.

It was, again, a woman, Pauline Marie Jaricot, who in 1822 initiated at Lyons the now world-wide Society for the Propagation of the Faith, by which missionaries in heathen countries are aided financially and in other ways in the prosecution of their labours. In an encyclical, dated 1904, Pope Pius X. commended this society in the following terms: "If the messengers of Catholic doctrine are able to reach out to the most distant lands and the most barbarous peoples, it is to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith that the credit must be given."

The facilities afforded to travellers by the steamship and the locomotive made an immense difference both in the time taken to reach distant countries and in the risk attendant upon slow journeys. Each new invention is pressed into the service of the apostolate, not excepting the motor-car and the aeroplane; whilst photography, by its accurate representations of heathen lands and their inhabitants, demonstrates to Christians at home the necessity for their collaboration.

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the missionary and religious bodies, in spite of persecution in Europe, had quietly prepared the way for this great expansion. To the already existing orders, such as Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, and Jesuits, new congregations of men and women were added, many of them founded for the express purpose of carrying the Gospel to the untold millions of souls still lying in darkness and in the shadow of death. Among them were the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, founded in the eighteenth century; the Society of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, or the Picpus Fathers (1805), one of whose most distinguished sons was Father Damien, the apostle of the lepers; the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (1816); the Marist Fathers (1816); the Lazarist Fathers (1824); the Salesians, founded by Don Bosco, 1855; St. Joseph's Society of Mill Hill, founded in 1866 by Cardinal Vaughan; the White Fathers (1868); and many others.

"We are now so familiar," says a missionary writer, "with the great amount of good done by Sisters in the foreign missions that we are apt to forget the recent origin of this part of the work. A few nuns were working in India at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The first Sisters of Charity went to Australia in 1840 and to China in 1844. It is since that time that religious congregations of women have spread all over the foreign missions. To-day they are a most important factor in the conversion of natives, and there are over eighteen thousand Sisters on the foreign missions. We are witnessing only the beginnings of this new development, and we may expect even greater things for the future."

Missionary countries are under the jurisdiction either of the Congregation of Propaganda or of the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs. By a decree of Pope Pius X. in 1908 it was ordained that such jurisdiction should in future extend only to countries where there is no established hierarchy. One of the immediate results of this decree was, therefore, that Great Britain, Holland, Luxemburg, Canada, and the United States became independent of Propaganda. The first three of these are but recovering from their former defection; the last two are young and vigorous, having sprung, within the memory of man, into their present proud position in the Church.

Taking the continents in the same order as in the chapter on the rise of foreign missions, we find that the preaching of the Gospel met with peculiar difficulties in Africa. These difficulties were greatly increased by the persecution of the religious orders in Portugal and by the suppression of the Society of Jesus. Christianity languished until the middle of the nineteenth century, when new apostles, taking advantage of the embers of faith still smouldering in the districts once evangelized by the Spaniards and Portuguese, resumed the interrupted work.

Religious of many orders, both men and women, soon obtained a firm hold on the Dark Continent, which, by the end of the nineteenth century, was mapped out into fields giving already a steady harvest to the Church. The Vicariate Apostolic of the Upper Nile, with Uganda; the Prefecture Apostolic of the Zambesi Mission; the numerous Catholic missions in the Congo territory, contain thousands of native converts and catechumens. In no part of the world is the assistance given by the Society for the Propagation of the Faith of greater value or more fruitful in results than among these African races.

Asia still presents the spectacle of hundreds of millions of unhappy souls sunk in the depths of infidelity. In spite of the zealous labours of missionaries, their numbers are too small to make a perceptible impression on the vast masses given over to Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and all the forms of Polytheism.

Persecution has teased in both China and Japan, but it has been succeeded by an indifference and a scepticism perhaps more fatal to the progress of the faith. This state of things is the result of the adoption of Western ideas of civilization, and it is impossible to say whether, from the struggle between old and new customs, the cause of God will emerge victorious.

A similar religious situation may be met with among the native inhabitants of India, though here, of course, the Catholic faith has far deeper roots. Centuries of European rule have made Christianity familiar; and the missionaries, working unceasingly, have covered the vast peninsula with a network of Catholic influence, powerful indeed, but hampered by lack of funds and still more of hands. The European missionaries belong naturally to the religious orders, but they are ably seconded by a native secular clergy.

Australia, though known to exist, found no place in the pages of Church history until the nineteenth century. The first British settlement there was made in the year 1788, and its purpose was the punishment of criminals by transportation. Among the convicts in this and succeeding arrivals were many Catholics, especially political prisoners from Ireland. The story of how they kept the faith alive until such time as, freed from their bonds, they were enabled to set up a church and maintain a clergy of their own, is of thrilling interest.

The discovery of gold in 1881 brought a new element into the population, and the subsequent disuse of transportation removed the slur of the convict system. Since that time Catholicism has been on the increase, and Australia, though still subject to the Roman Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, is one of the most flourishing portions of the Catholic Church. The third Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Moran, distinguished as a prelate, a statesman, and a writer, was a powerful agent in the advance made by Australia from his appointment in 1884 to his death in 1911.

South and Central America, sometimes called "Latin America," because peopled by descendants of Spaniards and Portuguese, have gone through many vicissitudes, but have never wavered in their faith. The suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 was a terrible blow to the Church in these countries. It was followed by the utter destruction of the magnificent Reductions of Paraguay, among other calamities which extended throughout the latter eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Only now are these evils beginning to be repaired in Peru, Chile, Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and other states, in which Catholics may hope to see a great renovation.

Canada somewhat resembles the Catholic countries of South America in the fact that its original French population, reinforced by large numbers of Irish settlers, possessed the faith from the beginning and kept it through all changes of government. The native Indian tribes have never lacked devoted missionaries to follow in the footsteps of the pioneers who gave their lives to bring the good tidings of Christianity among them. There are at present some fifty thousand Catholic Canadian Indians, but this forms only one-half of the native population, so that much missionary work remains yet to be done.

Until the year 1783 the British Colonies in North America were under the jurisdiction of the Vicar Apostolic of the London district. By the political severance of the federated states from Great Britain the religious connection was broken. It was therefore necessary to make arrangements with Rome for supplying the spiritual needs of the Catholics in the newly constituted republic. In reply to a petition addressed to Pope Pius VI. by the clergy of Maryland, the Church in the United States was organized in 1784 by a degree of Propaganda placing the missions under a "Superior." This proving insufficient, another petition, in 1788, obtained the establishment of the See of Baltimore, under the illustrious Bishop Carroll, who in 1808 became its first Archbishop, with four suffragans.

Free from the yoke of the iniquitous English penal laws, and rejoicing in newly found liberty, Catholicism spread in an ever-advancing tide over the United States, proving itself indisputably the only stable religion. When, in 1912, Pope Pius X. raised the number of American Cardinals to three, the Catholic population had attained, at the lowest estimate, the number of fourteen millions.

Missions are flourishing, not only, as in Canada, among the native Indians, but also among non-Catholics of all denominations. Not the least important factor in the spread of religion is the modern conception of the travelling "mission-car," by which the most abandoned spots are brought into touch with the blessings of Mass and the Sacraments, When we consider this wonderful expansion of the Church in the United States it may well seem to us incredible that only a hundred years ago the tiny seed from which this great tree has grown counted for so little in the history of the universal Church.

"The Propagation of the Faith" is but the modern title of a work which has gone on since our Lord said to His Apostles: "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Multitudes of non-Catholic Christians, and countless millions of those still plunged in "the old superstition of the Gentiles," cry out from their darkness for the light which our holy mother, the Church, alone can give them. Every Catholic is therefore called to be an apostle, at least by example and by prayer, for to each our Divine Lord has said: "Let your light so shine before men that, seeing your good works, they may glorify your Father who is in heaven."

But from a chosen few Christ expects greater things—no less than the entire sacrifice of themselves and all that is dear to them—that they may be the better able to devote themselves to the salvation of souls. Of these He was thinking when He said: "Pray ye, therefore, the Lord of the harvest that He send labourers into His harvest." Happy are the Catholic youths and maidens to whom this vocation comes, and who, leaving all things, follow Him.

Short List of Books

From Which More Detailed Information Can be Obtained

GENERAL CHURCH HISTORY See Part II.

The Catholic Encyclopedia.

JANSENISM AND GALLICANISM.

Dalgairns: Devotion to the Sacred Heart.

"Angdlique Arnauld," in the Dublin Review, 1902.

Lives of St. Vincent de Paul, St. Francis de Sales, St. Jane Frances de Chantal, Blessed Margaret Mary Alacoque.

SUPPRESSION OF THE JESUITS.

Articles by Father S. Smith, S.J., in the Month, 1902–03.

A. Weld, S.J.: Suppression of the Jesuits.

FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.

The Prisoners of the Temple. Quarterly Series.

Lives of Madame Elizabeth, Blessed Sophie Barat, Blessed Julie Billiart, etc..

M. H. Allies: Life of Pope Pius VII.

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

Father Amherst, S.J.: History of Catholic Emancipation.

Lives of Challoner, Milner, Daniel O'Connell, etc.

Justin McCarthy: History of Our Own Times.

Wiseman: Recollections of the Four Last Popes.

Mgr. Ward: Dawn of Catholic Revival. Eve of Catholic Emancipation. Sequel to Catholic Emancipation.

THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL AND LIBERALISM.

"A Century of Catholic Literature" in the Dublin Review, 1901.

W. Ward: W. G. Ward and the Oxford Movement. W. G. Ward and the Catholic Revival. Life of Cardinal Wiseman. Life of Cardinal Newman. The Pope and the People.

Newman: Present Position of Catholics. Apologia pro Vita Sua. Essay on Development.

T. W. Allies: A Life's Decision. Per Crucem ad Lucem.

Bishop Chatard: Occasional Essays.

Works by W. Poland, S.J., and C. B. Pallen.

Snead-Cox: Life of Cardinal Vaughan.

All the books mentioned above can be obtained from R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd., Paternoster Row, London, and from any of their branches.

R. & T. VASHBOURNR LTD., LONDON