general regarded as intolerable. There was the risk, on the other, of seeming to disagree with authorities of such a nature that the very thought was sufficient to make the hair stand on end. Under the pressure of such perplexity it can be no matter of surprise that a tormented prelate lost his temper, made the case personal, and publicly renounced a friendship of forty-five years standing—that Roman Catholic Unions, confounded at the state of affairs, lost their heads and voted Expostulation to be a deliberate insult—or that an angry priesthood announced, through its press, the hatred of millions' towards their greatest and most zealous benefactor. These outbreaks appeared to most men only to show the necessity of the interrogation which had called them forth.

6

As time wore on however, replies to the 'Expostulation,' of various descriptions and from various quarters, began gradually to appear. The world has been taken by surprise by these answers as much as it was by the Expostulation' which called them forth. They have shed an entirely new light upon the Roman Catholic mind. The divergence of opinion which they exhibit is so marked, that Romanism stands amazed at itself. Some, like Dr. Manning, charge the blame of this division to the deliberate malicious intention of the Expostulator. Others, like Father Newman, unwillingly recognising the fact, make light of the difference, as one which may not affect the unity of faith. However it may be accounted for, the fact itself remains undeniable: it is patent to the world. Every one sees

that contradictory principles of the highest importance, both doctrinal and moral, accompanied by much bitter feeling, and mutual alienation of parties, have manifested themselves in the Church of Rome. That antagonism may be consistent with the unity which is regarded as a note of the true Church. Prima facie it does not seem consistent with that unity. It discloses a society separated by principles apparently irreconcileable. It seems subversive of the Roman idea of the Church as a body instituted for the purpose of preserving unity in faith, and for that reason gifted with infallibility.

Such impressions may be quite erroneous; mature investigation may prove them untenable. They are, however, such at least as cannot be dismissed without examination. They press themselves on the attention of Christians generally, and especially that of educated Roman Catholics.

Romanism is, we must remember, totus teres atque rotundus, a system which claims to be harmonious, logically consistent, and perfectly defensible. It considers itself competent to hold its own against all comers; and its most eminent authorities point out the duty and necessity of investigating and understanding its argumentative basis. Enquiry' says Father Newman, 'implies doubt, and investigation does not imply it, and those who assent to a doctrine or a fact, may without inconsistency investigate its credibility. In the case of educated minds, investigations into the argumentative proof of the things to

...

which they have given their assent is an obligation, or rather a necessity. . . . Certainly such processes of investigation, whether in religious subjects or secular, often issue in the reversal of the assents which they were originally intended to confirm; but to incur risk is not to expect reverse, and if my opinions are true I have a right to think that they will bear examination.'1

Fortified by such an authority, I proceed to investigate the existing differences of belief in the Church of Rome.

Newman, Grammar of Assent, pp. 184, 185.

§ 2. DIVERGENCE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC

FAITH.

BEFORE We consider these differences in themselves, it may be well to notice the advance of Romanism in England, which has had no small share in producing them. Every one knows of the collapse of Tractarianism, and the brilliant conversions thence ensuing, which so much gladdened the heart of the Papacy. The immediate return of this kingdom to obedience was predicted and counted on. A conversion or two of people of rank now and then sustained the notion. The Papacy, however, left no stone unturned to convert predictions into realities. Every nerve was strained to obtain numerical ascendancy. It is impossible to avoid complimenting the agents of propagandism on their zeal the country became thickly studded with monasteries, cathedrals, churches, convents, colleges, hospitals, homes, abbeys, friaries, reformatories, and schools. Priests, friars, nuns, jesuits swarmed in every direction. Protestants were alarmed by a proselytism which almost assumed the shape of persecution; and converts were obtained-by no means few in number.

This is one side of the question. There was, however, another side.

In the meantime, other agencies were at work, in a mode of which certainly no one had the most remote anticipation. Circumstances took place beyond human control, which in the course of a generation reduced the Roman Catholics of the kingdom from the proportion of a rapidly increasing third, to the moderate scale of a diminishing sixth of the whole population; and met the 2,000 converts of whom Dr. Capel boasts as the net annual result of propagandism,2 by increasing the Protestant population at the rate of 280,000 annually; so that in point of fact, the Papacy is pretty much in the position of a swimmer, who, notwithstanding the most desperate efforts to reach the shore, is rapidly swept out to sea by the retiring tide. It is only another illustration of the ancient truth, The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.' Jesuitism ought, according to all human calculations, to carry everything before it; but somehow it does not: there is some mysterious Power at work to defeat its deep-laid plans.

6

No one denies the zealous efforts of the Pope, like another Gregory, to attain the glory of conquering England. The natural consequence has followed. The

1 Mr. Gladstone computes the present number to be five millions: Dr. Manning says 'six.' I prefer the statesman's estimate to the theolo

gian’s.

2 Capel, Reply to Gladstone, p. 15.