upwards of one hundred and twenty times. We will not bore our readers with specimens. It is the old story, familiar to every one conversant with the history of the Church for the last three centuries. During that long and stormy period has there been a single man, animated with a special hostility to the Holy See, especially under the mask of a Catholic name, who was not also animated with a special hostility towards them? Has there been a single writer who assailed the purity of Catholic doctrine, a single Janus or Quirinus, who did not also assail the purity of their characters? Has there been a single statesman who set about crushing the liberty of the Church in any Catholic nation, a single Pombal or Cavour, who did not commence the work of sacrilege by crushing, or trying to crush, them? "Quid plura ?"* Having given these specimens of Quirinus's "best authority" on the Vatican Council, we have now a word to say on his "deeper views" as a theologian. He constantly sits in judgment on theology and theologians, and pronounces his decisions with that assured self-complacency which so often imposes on unsuspecting ignorance. His denunciation of the Spanish Bishops, given above, may be taken as a specimen. Does he anywhere exhibit evidence of his qualification for an office of such high censorship-evidence not of the justness of his actual criticisms, but of his capacity to criticise at all? Let us see. On the Pope, the Church, and General Councils, he has given a profusion of theological disquisition; but theology which is, as we have said, a mere compound of Protestantism and the most extreme Jansenism. In all the other numerous and vast departments of the sacred science he has given us, as far as we could notice, but one solitary opportunity of testing his theological acquirements. In his sixth letter (dated Rome, December 24, 1869), commenting on one of the Schemata submitted to the Council, Quirinus says (p. 112): "It contains on its front the impress of the new Jesuit school. . . . Here is a characteristic specimen. At the Florentine Synod of 1439, which bequeathed such painful recollections both to East and West, Eugenius IV. had it defined that the souls of those who die only in original, or in actual mortal sin, descend into hell, but are unequally pun Dr. Johnson, in his "Life of Paul Sarpi," near the end, has the following: "His detestation of the corruption of the Roman Church appears in all his writings, but particularly in this memorable passage of one of his letters: 'There is nothing more essential than to ruin the reputation of the Jesuits; by the ruin of the Jesuits Rome will be ruined.'” Sarpi was the Quirinus of the Council of Trent. How men, like events, reproduce themselves! ished.' This proposition has sadly tormented theologians, and they have devised all sorts of ways of softening or explaining it, even assuming the very doubtful authority of this Council, which was rejected by the whole Gallican Church. For even the most resolute faith recoils in horror from the logical inference that God has created the human race in order, from generation to generation, to plunge into hell far the larger portion of mankind, simply because they have not received the baptism which in most cases was never offered them. The vast gulf between this proposition and the Scriptural doctrine that God is Love, and wills all men to be saved, no theologian has undertaken to bridge over." This is indeed a "characteristic specimen"-of Quirinus, and quite enough. It exhibits in a marked way, first, the gross dishonesty of the scientific historian; secondly, his equally gross ignorance of the commonest theological speculations and of the commonest theological books. Quirinus's scientific history. First, from his words a reader unacquainted with the Acts of the Councils would at once infer, would take for granted, that the introduction of the above definition among the doctrines of the Church was due entirely to the Council of Florence, and that the definition is not to be found in any previous General Council. Is this true? It is false. The Council of Florence was held in the year 1439. In the profession of faith, made in the name of the whole Greek Church, in a General Council (second of Lyons) held nearly a hundred and seventy years before (1274), the very same defini tion is given with hardly the variation of even a single unimportant word: "We believe that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original, immediately descend into hell, to be punished with unequal penalties." + Second. What does Quirinus mean by saying that the Council of Florence "bequeathed painful recollections both to * "Animas eorum qui in solo peccato originali, vel mortali actuali decedunt, in infernum descendere, pœnis tamen disparibus puniendos.”—Note of Quirinus. + Πιστευομεν εκείνων δε τας ψυχας των εν θανασιμῳ ἁμαρτηματι, η μετα μονης της προπατορικής αποχωρησαντων, παραυτικα εις τον άδην καταβαινειν, ποιναις ανίσοις τιμωρηθησόμενας. (Harduin, vii. 696.) The exact words of the Council of Florence, as given by the same Harduin, ix. 986, are:-"Diffinimus illorum autem animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato, vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas." The Council did not define anything as to the nature of the punishments: the main force of the definition falls therefore on the word immediately” (παραυτικα, "mox"). Perrone, de Deo Creatore, n. 812, note. Quirinus, doubtless, being entirely ignorant of this, we do not attribute his omission of the word to bad faith. VOL. XX.-NO. XXXIX. [New Series.] N East and West"? These words, if they mean anything, plainly signify that something was done in the Council or by the Council, which was the cause, or at least the occasion, of serious injury to the Church; something to be regretted; something that had been better left undone. Or they signify, what amounts to much the same thing, that it were better for the interests of the Eastern as well as the Western Church, if the Council had never met. Is this true? It is false. In the first place, we believe that, with the sole exception of that firebrand, Mark of Ephesus, all the Eastern Bishops who assisted at the Council remained firm till death in the faith there professed-Mark having been indeed opposed to reconciliation from first to last. It is beyond all question that the great majority of them did so remain, several of them under very trying hardships. The testimony to the truth of so many and such men, to say nothing of the salvation of their immortal souls, was of itself no slight gain. In the second place, if the rest of the Greeks remained in their schism and their errors, in what way or in what degree was the Council responsible for this? Did the Council of Nice bequeath painful recollections, because the Arians remained Arian, disturbing, afflicting, and in effort lacerating the Church for generations? Did the Council of Trent, because the Protestants remained Protestant? Did the Vatican Council, because Quirinus and a handful of Munich sciolists have turned Protestant? In the third place, that the profession of faith made in the last session of the Council, most especially that part of it which regards the Roman Pontiff, should have been assented to and subscribed by the Greeks-ah! this is a painful, the painful, recollection to Quirinus and the other New Protestants, as of course it has always been to the Old; but to all true Catholics a recollection pleasing indeed and most delightful. Third. But the authority of the Council is "very doubtful," and why? Because the Council "was rejected by the whole Gallican Church." Of the theology here implied we shall speak presently. Is the historical statement true, namely, that the Council of Florence was rejected by the whole Gallican Church? It is a falsehood, but of that kind which we characterized above in commencing our strictures on Quirinus. It is a falsehood. with an element of truth in it. His most Christian Majesty prohibited the French Bishops from attending the Council, and consequently (O blessed Gallican liberties!) not a single French Bishop was at it from beginning to end. (The very same thing happened to the French Bishops in reference to a previous General Council, the second of Nice.) In those days of slow and uncertain communication, reports of the most erroneous kind regarding the proceedings of the Council were spread everywhere through France. In consequence of these reports, the French Bishops, having no means of coming at a sure knowledge of the real facts, did not at first receive the Council. Eventually, when they did arrive at that knowledge, they accepted the Council entirely, absolutely, cordially. Of the positive and absolute rejection of the Council by the Gallican Church, at any time, there is no authentic evidence whatever : while of the ultimate reception of it we have decisive evidence. We suppose that the testimony of distinguished French theologians, at least of those who held what used to be called the Gallican doctrines, would be admitted as sufficiently conclusive on the point. Of these Tournely, beyond all question, held the very highest place in the public estimation. So high, indeed, did his character stand, that, after his death in 1729, it was no uncommon thing for even able and learned theologians, such as Collet, La Fosse, Montagne, &c., to publish courses or particular treatises of theology under his name or as continuations of his work. Now, Tournely, after admitting that, for the reasons just stated, the Council was not at first received in France, distinctly affirms that, the grounds of doubt having been removed, there is no reason for excluding the Council from the list of General Councils.* Natalis Alexander (ob. 1724), the famous historian, a very decided Gallican, not only maintains the full ecumenicity of the Council, but defends that ecumenicity at considerable length against the cavils of Mark of Ephesus and others.† We might refer to many other authorities of the same kind. We will name but one more, Cardinal de la Luzerne (ob. 1821). He was an open, uncompromising defender of Gallicanism; and was, we believe, the last of that class (Quirinus will pardon us) to whom even by courtesy the title of theologian could be extended. In a work written expressly and exclusively in defence of the declaration of 1682, Luzerne, towards the close of that work, undertakes to reconcile two positions held by him with certain proceedings in the Council of Florence. Now, if he did not believe in the ecumenicity of the Council, his obvious course should have been to deny that ecumenicity at once. But so far from adopting such a course, he takes up an elaborate chain of reasoning, which he carries on for upwards. of forty pages whether successfully or not is beside the - *Tournely, de Ecclesia, vol. ii., p. 309-10. + Dissertatio 10 in Hist. Ecclesiast., sec. 15 et 16. Sur la Déclaration de l'Assemblée du Clergé de France en 1682. Troisième partie, chap. 21. present point-without dropping a single word to indicate that he entertained the smallest doubt on the subject; arguing all along just as if he were reconciling his positions with the Council of Nice or of Trent. So much for the specimens of Quirinus's scientific history given within so short a compass. Let us now glance at the specimens of Quirinus's high theology. First. The doctrine of Quirinus on general Councils is throughout so entirely erroneous, that we need barely point out the proposition, which is implied in the preceding extract, and which affirms that a Council approved of as General by the Pope possesses but doubtful authority, if rejected by a single national Church. This doctrine is opposed to the uniform practice and manifest belief of the Church: it is simply heretical. Second. "This proposition [of the Council of Florence] has sadly tormented theologians." Whatever may be said of the doctrine set forth in the proposition (of which by-and-by), it is absolutely certain that the proposition itself, this new definition of that doctrine, threw no fresh difficulty in the way of theologians; created no new torment for them. As to the eternal lot of all who die without being in a state of grace, the Council defined merely what had not only been defined before, but had been always, as it is at this day, the universal, clear, explicit faith of the Church, and of every man, woman, and child in it, who understood the first rudiments of the faith. But the Council's definition about the Pope is the sore point with Quirinus, and for that he aims this blow at its authority, by insinuating that it framed a new theme of discord and distress for theologians. Is it true that the Council did this? It is false, utterly false. Third. "This proposition has sadly tormented theologians, and they have devised all sorts of ways of softening or explaining it." The proposition of the Council, as we have seen, left theologians exactly in the same state in which it found them. But did the doctrine declared in the proposition create at any time, before or after the Council, a special torment, that is, a special difficulty for theologians in the solution of objections, in harmonizing the doctrine with other defined doctrines: a difficulty such as does not occur in almost every treatise of theology, dogmatic and moral, and in some treatises at every second step? Most certainly not. On the contrary, as we shall see immediately, the solution given by the overwhelming majority of theologians, both before and since the Council of Florence, to the only difficulty worth looking at, clears away that difficulty most satisfactorily, and dissolves it into empty air. While, on the other hand, there are theological difficulties, |