Tractarianism, it was not so. Mr. Newman, as I have heard, had only the barest acquaintance with one or two Catholic priests, and was supposed rather to avoid than to court their society. I ought, however, to say, once for all, that whenever in these papers I have ventured to speak of Mr. Newmanor of others who were connected with this movement, but in departments of it which were more or less foreign to my own -I have done so by an historical licence only, according to the best means of information at my command, but under correction of those with whose names I have taken this liberty. With regard, however, to myself (so far as what relates to me individually can have any claim to public interest), as well as to others of whom I can speak with the same confidence as of myself, I can state positively that many of us had no personal knowledge of any Catholic priest till within a short time of our conversion; that I myself was never in a Catholic church in these islands but once, when I made a speedy retreat out of it under a panic of conscience; and that I was, moreover, all but entirely ignorant of the structure and ceremonies of the Mass before I became a Catholic, as was almost ludicrously evidenced when I did so.

On the whole, the more accurately we examine the character of this great movement in connection with its results, both actual and probable, the more we are thrown back from the uncertainty of our own conjectures upon the mystery of the Divine operations. "A Domino factum est istud, et est mirabile in oculis nostris." Twice before in these latter centuries has the Catholic Church seemed in the way to regain her hold upon the English nation: in the reign of the First Mary and that of the Second James. But the cup of promise was dashed away from her lips before it had neared them, and the hope which for the moment had been awakened had its reaction in periods of a still deeper depression. May it have been that her Lord reserved for her some better destiny; that He would have the work of restoration to begin, not from above, but from below-its instruments to be, not the princes and nobles of this world, but the missionaries of the poor; that He would lay its foundations deep in the spirit of obedience, conscientiousness, and self-sacrifice, instead of suffering it to be hurried into a premature and evanescent luxuriance, under the baneful action of influences which might have accelerated its growth without insuring its stability?

FREDERICK OAKELEY.

P.S.-Since these papers had gone too far to admit either of withdrawal or material change, Dr. Newman, to the universal

joy of Catholics, has been led, by an entirely unforeseen circumstance, to give to the world the best of all possible histories of the Tractarian Movement, and thus to supply the want in a sense of which the present imperfect sketch had its origin. The review of my own work by the light of Dr. Newman's most beautiful and affecting narrative, leads me to feel most sensibly how much reason I have to ask pardon of him for the free and merely conjectural use which I have made of his name, and of the public for having unintentionally intruded upon a ground which should have been reserved exclusively for him. As my work is now a fait accompli, which I can neither undo nor qualify, both parties must kindly accept this apology in the place of any better reparation; and of the public, more especially, I would ask that it would simply accept Dr. Newman's work as the test by which the accuracy or inaccuracy of all I have said concerning himself, his acts, words, and opinions, is to be tried, as well as of my general account of the movement itself, with the exception, of course, of such parts of my narrative as relate to what happened to myself at a distance from the scene of Dr. Newman's labours, and the sphere of his personal observation. In one respect, the publication of these papers may be even serviceable to Dr. Newman's object, in the way, namely, of accidental corroboration. That any coincidence between his statements and mine is "undesigned," will be evident, when I mention that I have had no personal communication whatever with him on the subject of the present series, and that I have no reason to know that he has even seen it.

200

Foreign Periodical Literature.

DR. DÖLLINGER AND THE MUNICH CONGRESS.

Civiltà Cattolica, February 20--March 5, 1864.

HE Malines Congress was a Congress of Catholics, or a Catholic Congress.

The Munich Congress was confined to the learned Catholics of Germany; and, in fact, while no less than four thousand persons attended the Belgian Congress, that of Munich did not number above eighty-four. The learned and select character of this assembly, however, gives to its acts a higher scientific character; while, at the same time, it is not to be denied that this increase of dignity brought with it a corresponding peril, by opening the door to the introduction of disputable and even dangerous theories. Under such circumstances the learned, not of Germany only, but of all other nations, have a right to examine the theories propounded, to pronounce their own opinion upon them, and, in particular, to inquire how far they are agreeable to the spirit, practice, and doctrines of the Church. The reviewers by no means intend to bring all the subjects discussed at the Munich meeting to this test; indeed they are glad to be able to express a sincere approbation of much that is contained in the acts of the Congress. Nevertheless, it is with pain that they feel themselves bound to state that they have also met with not a little that seems to them to be seriously reprehensible; and they are the freer to notice such passages with all frankness, because it appears that not a single bishop sat in the assembly; probably from a natural unwillingness to render ecclesiastical authority in any way responsible for its proceedings. In fact, this very motive is alleged by a bishop in a letter, wherein he courteously excuses himself from taking any personal share in the meeting. They have no disposition to make the Congress a party to any opinions which it did not formally endorse; but certainly the longest and most important discourse pronounced was not such as to correspond to the fame enjoyed by its illustrious author; and in perusing it, they were reminded of the regretful feelings recently awakened in their minds by another discourse upon a different subject delivered at Malines, which has cast a shade over a brilliant and honoured name. In the one case, as was to be expected in a large assembly, and that chiefly consisting of individuals, if not of the French nation, yet of the French language, practical subjects, such as that of civil liberty, preoccupied men's minds; in the other, as was no less natural in a restricted circle of German professors-men singularly given to scientific speculation-sacred sciences and theology, in particular, became the engross

ing topic. But in both cases we meet with the same deplorable example of an assault upon brethren instead of a combined attack on the common foe, each, it may be, undertaken with the latent hope of conciliating adversaries by abandoning friends to censure, without due consideration as to the invariable futility of such concessions, which in reality are made at the expense of truth and justice. The noble French orator, as the champion of the socalled "modern liberties," assailed what men please to call the ultra or Roman school (a common artifice of speech to disguise the boldness of an attack upon what is purely and simply Catholic), which condemns these liberties in the abstract; and the learned Dr. Döllinger, who takes up the gauntlet for "the liberties of the sacred sciences," seizes the occasion to disparage scholastic theology, and, as a consequence, that philosophy which is so intimately connected, not to say identified, therewith. The old edifice raised by scholasticism has fallen into ruin, he tells us; it is not susceptible of repair; we want a new building, as the former in no way meets the requirements of the living generation.

The opinion maintained by the writers of the Civiltà Cattolica as to the unimpaired solidity of the theological edifice, as well as that of scholastic philosophy, in all substantial respects, is matter of notoriety; of course there is nothing to hinder the perfecting of the structure and the adding thereto; many such contributions were made in the sixteenth century. For more than two centuries, however, the sciences have been drifting away from theology, to their own great detriment and degradation-a result sure to follow, owing to the intimate connection which binds facts and ideas together. So patent became this evil at the beginning of the present century, that numbers of learned men throughout Catholic Europe, for these many years past, have been resorting anew to that majestic building under whose hospitable roof our fathers in the faith found shelter. Now the writers in the Civiltà Cattolica have been long actively promoting this return. Imagine, then, their feelings at hearing that the building is declared to be a hopeless ruin! It may well be supposed that they are not prepared to accept this sentence unexamined, particularly as the same author adds that the new edifice (which is to replace the old one) is not yet ready, though the stones have been got together and many eager labourers are busy at work hewing and fashioning them. We need for a habitation a house-not stone blocks; and even supposing that the building were finished, some slight distrust might reasonably be felt if it were one of very recent construction. How much more when it is not so much as begun; and this, too, in Germany!

Our writers might have foregone their right of examination, particularly as Dr. Döllinger's speech is not likely to attract much notice in Italy; but it so happens that while making a bitter attack on scholasticism, he unintentionally proves the direct contrary to what he would wish to establish; and from this very discourse it may be deduced, as a necessary conclusion, that in a return to the old scholastic theology alone can a true scientific restoration be expected. The "Discourse upon the Past and Present of Catholic Theology" is really an undesigned apology for scholasticism. They desire, therefore, to make Italy acquainted with this splendid confirmation of the doctrines they maintain.

The reviewers are far from wishing to ignore Dr. Döllinger's well-merited reputation; still less do they desire to impugn his orthodoxy. In this very discourse there are many admirable passages-as, for instance, where he shows how the liberty of the Catholic theologian is not in the slightest degree impaired by his submission to the Church, but, on the contrary, is in perfect harmony therewith; and yet in treating of the vicissitudes which theological science has undergone, he has broached many erroneous opinions. That they should judge these opinions severely can scarcely be made matter of objection by one who has judged all and everything, not only severely, but unjustly; who, for example, asserts that it would be easy to collect a series of propositions from the Summa of S. Thomas, which, when pressed by close logic to their final consequences, would lead to "pernicious errors." The like process, at any rate-and it need not be very close or pressing-they may be allowed to apply to the propositions of a German professor.

1.-What, according to Dr. Döllinger, is Theological Science? and what is its authoritative value in the Church?

Although the Professor entertains so mean an opinion of scholastic theology, yet to the position occupied by theology itself he attributes a kind of importance and authority which has surely never been conceded to it. There is much vagueness and confusion in his definition, but thus much may be stated in his own words :-"The scientific self-consciousness which the Church possesses of her past, present, and future, of the complexion of her doctrines, and of her ordering and rule of life, this it is which we call theology." Well may he say, "which we call theology," for the plural pronoun must be taken to represent himself: certainly no Catholic theologian ever thought of thus describing it, particularly as the precise meaning of the passage (in which the expression "scientific" might appear to introduce a certain qualification) is fixed by what follows, viz., that the Church existed in the world long before theology, and without it; just as a human being passes a certain portion of his existence before his self-consciousness developes itself. This, Dr. Döllinger tells us, is self-evident. But what does he here understand by the Church? Does he mean its pastors, with the Sovereign Pontiff at their head, who have received from Christ the commission to rule and instruct the flock? But the theology of the schools does not emanate from them: they propound dogmas and teach morals as they have traditionally received them; confirm, declare, develope, as need arises; and, above all, proscribe errors opposed to faith, according to the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. In so doing, the Church of course gives utterance to theological statements; but this is quite a different thing from composing scientific systems of theology. On scientific theology the Church undoubtedly sets a very high value, and she has made large use of it in her definitions; but as a system it is not constructed by her. Does he mean the Church as consisting of the body of the faithful? But these, taken as a whole, neither do nor can make theology: to them appertains the simplicity of belief, not the subtlety of argument. Putting aside, then, all these high-sounding phrases, which, soaring into the regions