use Prussia, and so they are contending with her; and will keep up. the contest successfully, if they can gain the laurels of martyrdom. Prince Bismarck must beware, and not let them suffer too creditably.1 But the Old Catholics have started with a wisdom-policy the world may say which fits them for Catholic extension, by leaving the State out of the question, and confining themselves to the sphere which a Church should ever esteem its peculium, the sphere of religion. "Politics," says Mr. Whittle, reiterating the suffrage of Munich, "can never become the main question with the Old Catholics -the religious question is the actuating influence, all through the movement" (p. 101).

Still, with this avoidance of the State as a part of religion, and a thing to be grasped after, or even married to, as the case may be, Old Catholicism means notwithstanding to have due respect for all national peculiarities and national rights. "National susceptibilities, too, will question the present Italian monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Vatican doctrines have been imposed upon the Church by Italians, and for Italians. The Italian monopoly of the Popedom, the majority of Italian Cardinals in all ages, the enormous preponderance of Italian votes in the Vatican Synod, do not escape the attention of the other Latin and the Northern races. The difficulty was got over tolerably as long as the Pope was only primus inter pares, with more or less defined powers; but now that he is the living voice of the Holy Ghost, his greater position makes this privilege of Italy the more remarkable" (p. 105).

Old Catholicism also dwells upon the inevitable results of the excesses of Ultramontanism. Those excesses terminate in violent and implacable reaction, and become the harbingers of anarchy and infidelity. "A vigorous Ultramontanism," says Mr. Whittle, with a clear appreciation of historical sequences, "has generally been the precursor of infidelity; and this sequence we observe particularly in

1 He might, for example, treat them as Rome treated the Archbishop of Breslau, for his fidelity to an oath of allegiance. (See the last October number of this REVIEW.) He might ask them, with all due respect, to resign. And if they would not do that, he might declare their sees vacant, conduct them safely and courteously to the boundary line of the kingdom, wish them a good morning, and advise them to stay away! This is the way in which Russia disposed of them: They were summoned into their college-hall at the dead of night, to hear a message from the Emperor. Were hurried off in close carriages, without being allowed to go back to their rooms. And a pack of ugly-looking horsemen sent with them, prepared to use a little gunlock persuasion if necessary!

the Latin nations" (p. 107). A position demonstrable enough from the ecclesiastical history of France. It was the steady and downbearing persistiveness of Popery in France which resulted in the turbulent and sanguinary outbreak of one of the fiercest revolutions which ever marred the world. Frenchmen could not endure the crudities and enormities and inflexibilities of Popery; and so they recoiled netherward. They began to believe in nothing past or future-in nothing but the wants of the current hour-and they became as rampant and reckless as hunger-mad wolves. They deluged their country with gore, and treated priests as outlaws. Even Napoleon I., who was infinitely better than lawlessness incarnate, while he restored Christianity, had to curb and almost extinguish the Pope; and if England had but known her opportunity, then would have been the time for extinguishing Popery (as such) for

evermore.

But England so dreaded and hated the French Emperorthe era of an entente cordiale had not appeared in remotest distance that she would not listen to him for a single moment. Rather, and with blind eagerness, she became an ally of such a wretch as Ferdinand VII. of Spain-filled his treasury, fought his battles, rebuilt his throne, and then allowed him to set up, in very deed, that most baleful of tribunals, which her own racy Southey called "hell plucked up by the roots." 1 England, too, virtually reinstated the Pope, whom Napoleon had formally dethroned and put in prison; and if now she is helping onward the reinstatement of Popery, under her own eye, she may thank herself for the sorry and spiteful intrusion. If England had had the sagacity of Old Catholicism, and looked at ecclesiastical questions from an ecclesiastical stand-point, and political questions from a political stand-point-not commingling the two, and most especially not settling ecclesiastical exigencies by political expediencies-Popery would never be harassing her, as she now is, with the throes of Purgatory. Most assuredly, Popery would then never have demanded admittance to her halls of legislation; and she would never have had to endure the

'This was Southey's verdict about The Inquisition in his celebrated controversy with Charles Butler, which produced his invaluable " "Vindiciae." Joseph Le Maistre is the most redoubtable champion of it; and his book we should like some day to notice. In a word, we may say that Le Maistre's defence is nothing but special pleading. The Inquisition was a Court of the State, and not a Court of the Church. This is just as good an argument for the Star-Chamber of England, and the Puritanic tribunals of New England; but Le Maistre-Jesuit-like-never looks but one way.

mortal humiliation of claiming that at least-her Prime Minister should always be a Protestant!

We are not volunteers with such statements, but feel constrained to make them. We are obliged to believe that England has brought all her late Papistical troubles upon herself. And we are equally obliged to believe that if she had not interfered ecclesiastically in the affairs of Ireland-had, e. g., given the Irish the free use of their own native tongue, for a Liturgy and for preaching-that even there Popery would have lost its foot-hold, and Ireland be at this day a preeminently Protestant land. Old Catholicism pursues a more accommodating course. It seems to be fitting itself with noble wisdom, for a Catholicity not cramped by languages or nationalities; and if it reaches that supremacy in Christendom, which once seemed falling, so to speak, into England's lap, it will have no undue or inapt recompense. How curious, how intensely, almost miraculously curious will it be, if Old Catholicism should attain that ascendancy in England itself, for which English policy has in a secular way vainly striven: which it seems as far from attaining as centuries ago! Yet such a peerless issue seems, according to Mr. Whittle, among the achievements which Old Catholicism may one day boast even in Ireland. He says, and we quote it as his ultimatum:

"Ultramontanism has always continued a thing alien to the spirit of the Irish people; they have never had any cordial feeling for Ultramontanes. The great organizer of the Ultramontane party in Ireland, is one of the most unpopular prelates Ireland has ever had. With regard to the laity, the same want of sympathy is discernible. The most active of the Ultramontane laity in England, Sir George Bowyer, obtained a seat for an Irish constituency. His enthusiasm for the popular faith was undoubted; and to this recommendation he added many advantages of wealth and position, yet his religious zeal had nothing in common with the simple faith of his Irish constituents; and, after awhile, he had to give place to some one more racy of the soil.

"The Bishops are, at present, the only body of Irishmen with Ultramontane sympathies; and their influence, as a body, has been gradually waning in Ireland, owing to political questions. The lower order of clergy have, for the most part, as little sympathy with Ultramontanism, as the people. A Catholic middle class is being gradually formed in Ireland; and with its growth the chance of such doctrines as those of Canon Pope [an eager defender of the new dogmas] finding acceptance, is diminishing every day. As the Vatican errors come before the Irish people, in all their grossness, without any predisposition of the people to run after new ideas, they will be rejected. But the religious temperament of the people is too active and earnest, to allow them to accept infidelity. They will naturally seek, in such an organization as Germany is preparing, a refuge from their perplexities" (pp. 109, 110).

Evidently, the Irish would not fancy the French way of carry

ing the problem of ecclesiastical safety, peace, and unanimity, to a satisfactory conclusion. Irish soil has no indigenous proclivity for the dragon's teeth of infidelity. And so may God send Irishmen a messenger of His Covenant, whom they will delight in. May he come to them with the mantle of a Döllinger on his shoulders. Let them have a Bishop with his temper, consideration, learning, purity, and devotion; and we should fondly hope that Mr. Whittle might prove himself better than a benevolent dreamer, that he might become a true prophet for the best fortunes of his sighing and anxious country.

[The following article, by the Rev. Dr. Drumm, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was intended, originally, for another publication. When it was accepted by the CHURCH REVIEW, it was thought best, for the author's sake, to print it as it was written.]

I

T was my desire that the correspondence with the late Assistant Bishop of Kentucky should not be unduly protracted. I intended to close it as soon as the evidence offered had all been fairly examined, and I had shown that the assertion which occasioned the discussion had been made in ignorance of the facts. That point was reached long ago. I was quite content then to leave the matter with the intelligent public, and believed that my letter of November 28th would be allowed to end the correspondence. In this, however, I was greatly mistaken. Nearly a dozen communications have appeared since then. One bore the signature that stands for Dr. Cummins and Mr. Mason Gallagher, and three were from the Rev. Dr. Fisher of Yale. In these the original assertion is repeated and a number of other matters introduced, which, though not strictly pertinent to the question debated, have some connection with it, and so, if incorrectly stated or misapplied, might lessen the force of the direct argument. This being so, your readers will not be surprised at my resuming the pen.

I should be sorry to take the trouble if the unhistorical "Historicus" had been the only writer on the other side. Self-respect